Re: RFS: roxterm (updated package)
On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 09:53:09 +0200
George Danchev <danchev@spnet.net> wrote:
> > On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 21:39:25 +0200
> >
> > George Danchev <danchev@spnet.net> wrote:
> > > Package looks good and 557049 seems to be addressed as well, at least
> > > works for me;-). JFYI I just run into some leftovers in the roxterm(1)
> > > and roxterm- config(1) manpages -- they both contain [FIXME: manual]
> > > and [FIXME: source], and these are also shown in the man browser too.
> > > This is not a huge problem per se, and the package in sid also has it,
> > > but I think you might want to know about it and address it further. I
> > > use that package and I'm willing to upload.
> >
> > Thanks. I've added the missing elements to the DocBook files the man
> > pages are generated from, I hope they're OK now. This was an upstream
> > change so I've uploaded a new version:
> >
> > - URL: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/r/roxterm
> > - Source repository: deb-src http://mentors.debian.net/debian unstable main
> > contrib non-free - dget
> > http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/r/roxterm/roxterm_1.16.2-1.dsc
>
> Good. It turns out that yesterday I had installed autotools-dev by
> accident in my supposed to be clean chroot, so I failed to spot the
> following failure (and manage to complete the whole check cycle
> including install/deinstall/running).
>
> checking whether i486-linux-gnu-gcc and cc understand -c and -o together...
> yes
> configure: error: cannot run /bin/sh ./config.sub
> make: *** [config.status] Error 127
> dpkg-buildpackage: error: debian/rules build gave error exit status 2
>
> Adding autotools-dev back to build-dependencies fixes it,
OK, I've added that dependency back. I've duploaded a replacement, but I
haven't changed the version number because I think it's better not to
when it hasn't been released yet.
I also tried running autotools-dev's autogen.sh, but that resulted in a
lintian report:
P: roxterm source: direct-changes-in-diff-but-no-patch-system po/Makevars.template
so I thought I'd better avoid that for now. I'll replace my bootstrap.sh
with it in future upstream versions though.
> however I
> wonder what were your considerations to remove it in the first place
> from there?
I thought the autotools were supposed to generate self-contained
tarballs. I must have got the wrong idea.
--
TH * http://www.realh.co.uk
Reply to: