[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#492892: glibc: glibc-2.7/patches/hurd-i386 patches fails



On Wed, Jul 30, 2008 at 04:33:55PM +0000, Herbert P Fortes Neto wrote:
>
> > You are kidding me right ?
>
>  No
>
> > I mean come on, every single buildd has built the glibc fine. _you_
> > are somehow shooting yourself in the foot, you probably messed up
> > with some symlinks I don't know, but please, sort this out on your
> > own.
>
> I have already did it two days ago.
>
> And I am not have been rude.

I'm not rude, I'm annoyed you don't connect the dots by yourself, but
here is it spelled out:

build-tree/glibc-2.7/patches is a symlink to debian/patches IOW
build-tree/glibc-2.7/patches/series and debian/patches/series ARE
SUPPOSED TO BE THE SAME.

It's note the case for you, so probably, in your environment the symlink
points to another place, that happes to also be a glibc quilt patch
queue, just not the proper one. I have _no clue_ on the how and the why,
and like tbm said, it's probably because of your build envirnoment,
probably because the glibc (or quilt I don't know) does the symlink in
an absolute way instead of relative, which is not
{chroot,NFS,mv,renames,...}-proof, and probably emdebian or you is doing
one of those things.

And given the really tiny amount of information that I had to forcefully
get from you, it's hard to say what. Note that the fact that you were
building the glibc using emdebian should have been the first thing you
should have said, and you should have tried by yourself that the glibc
builds fine without emdebian, hence have understood by yourself that
emdebian was at fault, and bug the emdebian people instead.

So no, I'm not rude, I'm annoyed I have to be your brain remotely for a
problem that is after all not glibc related.
-- 
·O·  Pierre Habouzit
··O                                                madcoder@debian.org
OOO                                                http://www.madism.org

Attachment: pgpNKLru82cHB.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: