Hi all, First accept my apologies for not responding to the list in the first time (while I intended to) and only CCing now... On Sun, Oct 10, 2010 at 02:40:24AM +0200, Massimo Manghi wrote: > Hi Julien > > On Sat, 9 Oct 2010 11:26:04 +0200, Julien Viard de Galbert wrote > > Hi Massimo, > > I'm not sure it will answer your question exactly but I never had to > > add debhelper to the base.tgz to compile any package and most > > packages builddepend on debhelper so your question looked strange to > > me. So I tryed to build your package with pbuilder and in fact it > > worked, I double checked and my base.tgz does not include debhelper > > so there must be something different on your system. > > > > One thing to notice though is that the install of > > pbuilder-satisfydepends-dummy effectively fails, but it only > > partially fails, dpkg ends saying: | dpkg: error processing pbuilder- > > satisfydepends-dummy (--install): | dependency problems - leaving > unconfigured > > | Errors were encountered while processing: > > | pbuilder-satisfydepends-dummy > > So pbuilder-satisfydepends-dummy is only partially installed, but > > then the installation of the dependency occurs and pbuilder- > > satisfydepends-dummy is finally configured so it continues and build > > the package. > > > > I think that's just the way it work and the error about > > pbuilder-satisfydepends-dummy being left unconfigured is just temporary > > and can be ignored. (any expert advice ??) > > I thought the same at first, but I could not explain the fact the debhelper > was evidently missing in an environment devised to build packages. In fact, as > soon as I got it into base.tgz something changed, the depends were detected > and the package built. > I believe debhelper is not mandatory, packaging can be done without it so pbuilder should not include it by default. I understand that installing it changes things for you, this looks strange. But I'll have to test it to be able to comment on that... (still seeking expert advice...) > > > > Oh, by the way using sid's lintian it does not appear completely > > clean to me, you should use a more recent lintian (from backport or using > > pbuilder to run it) > > > > I feared this. I even looked for the command to run lintian within pbuilder. > Perhaps I didn't searched too hard, perhaps I was tired and at the sane tine > satisfied with my newly pbuilder created package that I gave up. Please would > you tell me how general shell commands can be launched in pbuilder? > I've never done this (I'm running a sid workstation for my packaging work) but I remembered reading about it. So I searched in the archives and could recover this two mails: http://lists.debian.org/debian-mentors/2010/08/msg00135.html http://lists.debian.org/debian-mentors/2010/05/msg00129.html Also pbuilder include some example hooks that might worth a look, especially: /usr/share/doc/pbuilder/examples/B90lintian > > Hope this helps > > it certainly will. Merci beaucoup. > > -- Massimo Manghi -- Julien Viard de Galbert <julien@vdg.blogsite.org> http://silicone.homelinux.org/ <julien@silicone.homelinux.org> GPG Key ID: D00E52B6 Published on: hkp://keys.gnupg.net Key Fingerprint: E312 A31D BEC3 74CC C49E 6D69 8B30 6538 D00E 52B6
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature