Re: New dash in experimental
On Mon, 20 Oct 2014, Gerrit Pape wrote:
> See #766048, I rate the results as ciritical issues ;), and so won't
I’ve glanced at the list referenced.
Some things that immediately come to mind:
autoconf2.64 2.64-3 Failed [CONFIGURE_ERROR] configure: error: no acceptable m4 could be found in $PATH.
> maybe related to #764580?
encfs 1.7.4-4 Failed [CONFIGURE_ERROR] configure: error: Could not link against !
> happens on stock sid build (m68k) too
> seen this on my buildd
glib-networking 2.42.0-1 Failed [UNKNOWN] cp: cannot stat 'debian/tmp/usr/share/installed-tests': No such file or directory
> same, IIRC with DEB_BIUILD_OPTIONS=nocheck?
> seen this on my buildd
sofia-sip 1.12.11+20110422.1-2 Failed [UNKNOWN] /bin/sh: 4: pushd: not found
> bashism, you should reportbug that, RC severity (Policy 10.4)
hdf-eos4 2.19v1.00+dfsg.1-1 Failed [UNKNOWN] ../libtool: 1: eval: base_compile+= -c: not found
libvisca 1.0.1-1 Failed [UNKNOWN] ../libtool: 1: eval: base_compile+= -c: not found
ntop 3:5.0.1+dfsg1-2 Failed [UNKNOWN] ./libtool: 1: eval: base_compile+= -c: not found
> (incidentally, all those += as well)
salome-kernel 6.5.0-8.1 Failed [UNKNOWN] ../configure: 3826: ../configure: function: not found
tinyos-tools 1.4.2-1 Failed [UNKNOWN] ./configure: 4288: ./configure: function: not found
> kshism, also reportbug
To be completely fair, you should repeat the very same source
package builds, with the very same archive snapshot in use
(actually, for rebuilds like this, using snapshot.d.o as the
*only* entry in sources.list, for both deb and deb-src, is
the way to go) as during the initial rebuild against the new
dash version, to diff failures.
(Or rebuild stock archive first, filter out failures, then
rebuild what built.)
bye,
//mirabilos
--
Sometimes they [people] care too much: pretty printers [and syntax highligh-
ting, d.A.] mechanically produce pretty output that accentuates irrelevant
detail in the program, which is as sensible as putting all the prepositions
in English text in bold font. -- Rob Pike in "Notes on Programming in C"
Reply to: