I see ghc FTBFS on Alpha in experimental at Debian-Ports.  I realise  
Alpha is not an official architecture so probably falls below your  
radar, but I wondered, if, nevertheless, you might be happy to take a  
look at the build log which ends with:

echo 'executablename="/«PKGBUILDDIR»/inplace/lib/ghc-
stage2"'            >> inplace/bin/ghc-stage2
echo 'datadir="/«PKGBUILDDIR»/inplace/lib"'       >> inplace/bin/ghc-
stage2
echo 'bindir="/«PKGBUILDDIR»/inplace/bin"'        >> inplace/bin/ghc-
stage2
echo 'topdir="/«PKGBUILDDIR»/inplace/lib"'     >> inplace/bin/ghc-
stage2
echo 'pgmgcc="/usr/bin/gcc"'            >> inplace/bin/ghc-stage2
cat ghc/ghc.wrapper               >> inplace/bin/ghc-stage2
chmod +x                               inplace/bin/ghc-stage2
   HC [stage 2] utils/haddock/dist/build/Haddock/GhcUtils.o

utils/haddock/src/Haddock/GhcUtils.hs:1:35:
     lexical error at character '\n'
make[2]: *** [utils/haddock/dist/build/Haddock/GhcUtils.o] Error 1

Full log is at:
http://buildd.debian-ports.org/status/fetch.php?pkg=ghc&arch=alpha&ve...

Is this likely to require an easy fix or not?  (I have no idea since I  
don't know anything about haskell.)

I also see a lot of haskell packages coming through into the  
experimental distribution and on Alpha some have been built with ghc  
7.4.1-4 from unstable.  Would it be better if I did not upload the  
built packages and left them sitting in the "built" state until we get  
a working ghc in experimental so that they can built with ghc 7.6 and  
I don't end up having to spend lots of time scheduling binNMUs?

Cheers
Michael.

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-alpha-REQU...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/8F4EF044-61C4-4F29-BBB1-78379A773...@orcon.net.nz

Hi,

Am Dienstag, den 16.10.2012, 13:33 +1300 schrieb Michael Cree:

That is certainly strange. The file in question is just fine and builds
ok on all other arches. The thing to note seems to be that this is the
first file built by the stage 2 compiler. I assume this means that it is
broken...

You can report a bug at upstream:
http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/ghc
but they tend to care not a whole lot about odd architectures.
Nevertheless maybe someone has seen the error before and can easily tell
what’s wrong.

Sorry that was a mistake by me: For some of them my dependency adjusting
regex failed, and they built against 7.4.1 by accident (and by
aptitude’s preference of unstable over experimental). Yesterday I have
hopefull re-uploaded all affected packages.

Greetings,
Joachim

--
Joachim "nomeata" Breitner
Debian Developer
  nome...@debian.org | ICQ# 74513189 | GPG-Keyid: 4743206C
  JID: nome...@joachim-breitner.de | http://people.debian.org/~nomeata

signature.asc < 1K Download

On Tue 16 October 2012 20:24:51 Joachim Breitner wrote:

Thanks, I've now done that; it's ticket #7339.

I've also realised that ghc first FTBFS at version 7.4.2 on Alpha.  I've got
the unstable version (7.4.1-4) currently rebuilding to verify that it still
builds successfully, and if it does then we know that the problem was
introduced between 7.4.1 and 7.4.2.

OK, I won't upload the built packages then on Alpha.  Presumably when the re-
uploaded packages come through all those built ones will revert to BD-
uninstallable and can stay in that state until we get a working ghc in
experimental.

Cheers
Michael.

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-alpha-REQU...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/201210172124.11257.mc...@orcon.net.nz