Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Circular dependency between jbuilder and ocaml-migrate-parsetree #11365

Closed
whitequark opened this issue Feb 6, 2018 · 2 comments
Closed

Circular dependency between jbuilder and ocaml-migrate-parsetree #11365

whitequark opened this issue Feb 6, 2018 · 2 comments

Comments

@whitequark
Copy link
Member

The actions to process have cyclic dependencies:
  - ⊘  ocaml-migrate-parsetree.1.0.7 -> ⊘  jbuilder.1.0+beta17 -> ⊘  ocaml-migrate-parsetree.1.0.7

See https://travis-ci.org/ocaml-ppx/ppx_deriving_yojson/jobs/337881590.

@AltGr
Copy link
Member

AltGr commented Mar 2, 2018

This has been fixed since, I believe, but let me add some more cycles my new opam admin check detected:

  * io-page = 1.0.0 → mirage-types (>= 1.1.0 & != 2.0.0 & < 2.6.0)
  * mirage-types = 2.0.0 → io-page = 1.0.0
  * io-page = 1.0.0 → mirage-types = 2.6.0
  * io-page = 1.0.0 → mirage-types = 2.8.0
  * io-page = 1.0.0 → mirage-types >= 3.0.0 → mirage-protocols = 1.3.0 → mirage-flow = 1.0.0 → mirage-types-lwt = 2.0.0
  * io-page = 1.0.0 → mirage-types >= 3.0.0 → mirage-protocols = 1.3.0 → mirage-flow = 1.0.0 → mirage-types-lwt (>= 2.0.1 & < 2.3.0)
  * mirage-types >= 3.0.0 → mirage-protocols = 1.3.0 → mirage-flow = 1.0.0 → mirage-types-lwt (>= 2.0.1 & < 2.3.0)
  * io-page = 1.0.0 → mirage-types >= 3.0.0 → mirage-protocols = 1.3.0 → mirage-flow (>= 1.0.1 & < 1.2.0) → mirage-types-lwt = 2.0.0
  * io-page = 1.0.0 → mirage-types >= 3.0.0 → mirage-protocols = 1.3.0 → mirage-flow (>= 1.0.1 & < 1.2.0) → mirage-types-lwt (>= 2.0.1 & < 2.3.0)
  * mirage-types >= 3.0.0 → mirage-protocols = 1.3.0 → mirage-flow (>= 1.0.1 & < 1.2.0) → mirage-types-lwt (>= 2.0.1 & < 2.3.0)
  * mirage-types >= 3.0.0 → mirage-protocols = 1.3.0 → mirage-flow (>= 1.0.1 & < 1.2.0) → mirage-types-lwt (>= 2.3.0 & < 2.6.0)
  * io-page = 1.0.0 → mirage-types >= 3.0.0 → mirage-stack → mirage-protocols = 1.3.0 → mirage-flow = 1.0.0 → mirage-types-lwt = 2.0.0
  * io-page = 1.0.0 → mirage-types >= 3.0.0 → mirage-stack → mirage-protocols = 1.3.0 → mirage-flow = 1.0.0 → mirage-types-lwt (>= 2.0.1 & < 2.3.0)
  * mirage-types >= 3.0.0 → mirage-stack → mirage-protocols = 1.3.0 → mirage-flow = 1.0.0 → mirage-types-lwt (>= 2.0.1 & < 2.3.0)
  * io-page = 1.0.0 → mirage-types >= 3.0.0 → mirage-stack → mirage-protocols = 1.3.0 → mirage-flow (>= 1.0.1 & < 1.2.0) → mirage-types-lwt = 2.0.0
  * io-page = 1.0.0 → mirage-types >= 3.0.0 → mirage-stack → mirage-protocols = 1.3.0 → mirage-flow (>= 1.0.1 & < 1.2.0) → mirage-types-lwt (>= 2.0.1 &
    < 2.3.0)
  * mirage-types >= 3.0.0 → mirage-stack → mirage-protocols = 1.3.0 → mirage-flow (>= 1.0.1 & < 1.2.0) → mirage-types-lwt (>= 2.0.1 & < 2.3.0)
  * mirage-types >= 3.0.0 → mirage-stack → mirage-protocols = 1.3.0 → mirage-flow (>= 1.0.1 & < 1.2.0) → mirage-types-lwt (>= 2.3.0 & < 2.6.0)
  * core_kernel (>= 112.01.00 & < 113.24.00) → pa_test (< 109.45.00 | >= 109.53.00 & < 111.08.00)
  * expect = 0.0.2 → oasis = 0.2.0

And the following can be added if we consider test/doc dependencies:

  * js_of_ocaml (>= 2.6 & < 3.0) → base64 >= 2.1.2 → bos → logs = 0.4.2
  * logs >= 0.5.0 → js_of_ocaml (>= 2.6 & < 3.0) → base64 >= 2.1.2 → bos
  * js_of_ocaml (>= 2.6 & < 3.0) → base64 >= 2.1.2 → bos → mtime
  * js_of_ocaml (>= 2.6 & < 3.0) → base64 >= 2.1.2 → bos → logs = 0.4.2
  * logs >= 0.5.0 → mtime → js_of_ocaml (>= 2.6 & < 3.0) → base64 >= 2.1.2 → bos
  * mtime → js_of_ocaml (>= 2.6 & < 3.0) → base64 >= 2.1.2 → bos
  * oasis = 0.2.0 → expect >= 0.0.4 → batteries (>= 2.5.0 & < 2.7.0) → qtest < 2.2

@AltGr
Copy link
Member

AltGr commented Mar 2, 2018

(sorry for the redundant lines, packages are grouped only when they have the exact same dependencies and there is no post-processing to regroup similar cycles at the moment)

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants