On Thu, Feb 17, 2005 at 04:26:12PM +0200, Marcus Sundman wrote:
> On Thursday 17 February 2005 21:32, Michael Koch wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 17, 2005 at 03:09:41PM +0200, Marcus Sundman wrote:
> > > On Thursday 17 February 2005 13:18, Bartosz Fenski aka fEnIo wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Feb 17, 2005 at 06:19:59AM +0200, Marcus Sundman wrote:
> > > > > I do the following (irrelevant output omitted):
> > > > > ----8<--------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > /usr/src/tmp$ apt-src install foo
> > > > > /usr/src/tmp$ cd foo-version
> > > > > /usr/src/tmp/foo-version$ apt-src build foo
> > > > > E: Not installed
> > > > > /usr/src/tmp/foo-version$
> > > > > ---->8--------------------------------------------------------
> > > > >
> > > > > Any idea what might be wrong?
> > > >
> > > > You don't have to enter to foo-version directory.
> > > > Anyway it should work even with that... both ways works for me.
> > >
> > > I tried that, too, but it still just says "E: Not installed".
> > >
> > > What's "E" and what's not installed? (This must be one of the least
> > > helpful error messages I've ever seen.)
> >
> > E means "error".
>
> Ah, ok.. (If the author tried to be confusing he could have made it say
> "Blue: No roof" or something. Although on a second thought that probably
> would have been too obvious and made ppl check out the source, and this way
> he got it actually more confusing by being less confusing. Clever.)
The addition of one compound-word ("Build-dependencies") would have solved
all of your ills. The BTS is ---> over there.
> (It would be nice if the man page of apt-src would state that "build"
> requires doing an "apt-get build-dep".)
Again, BTS ---> over there, and besides, it's not required to do an apt-get
build-dep if you've already got all of the relevant packages installed.
- Matt
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature