Bug#307919: marked as done (advi: FTBFS: Missing Build-Depends on groff-base)
Your message dated Wed, 11 May 2005 00:15:35 +0200
with message-id <20050510221535.GC8420@djpig.de>
and subject line Bug#307919: The buggy version is still in sarge
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what I am
talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration
somewhere. Please contact me immediately.)
Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)
--------------------------------------
Received: (at submit) by bugs.debian.org; 6 May 2005 13:19:19 +0000
>From aj@andaco.de Fri May 06 06:19:19 2005
Return-path: <aj@andaco.de>
Received: from c174134.adsl.hansenet.de (localhost.localdomain) [213.39.174.134]
by spohr.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian))
id 1DU2je-0007nP-00; Fri, 06 May 2005 06:19:18 -0700
Received: from aj by localhost.localdomain with local (Exim 4.50)
id 1DU2jX-0002rn-Aq; Fri, 06 May 2005 15:19:11 +0200
Date: Fri, 6 May 2005 15:19:11 +0200
To: Debian-OCaml-Liste <debian-ocaml-maint@lists.debian.org>
Cc: submit@bugs.debian.org
Subject: advi: FTBFS: Missing Build-Depends on groff-base
Message-ID: <[🔎] 20050506131911.GA1575@andaco.de>
References: <[🔎] 20050506123245.GA2929@itp.uni-hannover.de>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <[🔎] 20050506123245.GA2929@itp.uni-hannover.de>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i
From: Andreas Jochens <aj@andaco.de>
Delivered-To: submit@bugs.debian.org
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02
(1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on spohr.debian.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-5.8 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_00,HAS_PACKAGE,
NEW_DOMAIN_EXTENSIONS autolearn=no
version=2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02
X-Spam-Level:
Package: advi
Version: 1.6.0-5
Severity: normal
Tags: patch
Hello Helge,
On 05-May-06 14:32, Helge Kreutzmann wrote:
> Hello Andreas,
> I saw by chance your list in
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-amd64/2005/05/msg00166.html
>
> There you state:
> advi - + missing Build-Depends on groff-base
>
> To check this, I just rebuild advi on my amd64-machine (running Sarge)
> *without* groff-base installed, and it build fine. Please do *not* remove
> advi from Sarge and if there is a FTBS, then *please* file a proper
> bug report so that I can fix it (or someone of the OCAML-Team/some
> NMUler).
I apologize for not having filed a proper bug report for this
problem earlier.
I just rechecked this. When trying to build advi in a clean chroot
environment on amd64/sarge and also on i386/sarge, I get the following:
(/usr/share/texmf/tex/latex/hyperref/pdfmark.def))
! LaTeX Error: File `advi.sty' not found.
Type X to quit or <RETURN> to proceed,
or enter new name. (Default extension: sty)
Enter file name:
and then the build stops and waits for input. With an additional
Build-Depends on groff-base, the package builds fine.
Despite the fact that you said you can build the package without
groff-base, I file this as 'serious', because I can reproduce
this on i386 with the following simple commands:
su
apt-get remove groff-base
apt-get source advi
cd advi-1.6.0
dpkg-buildpackage
I hope that I did not miss anything.
Regards
Andreas Jochens
diff -urN ../tmp-orig/advi-1.6.0/debian/control ./debian/control
--- ../tmp-orig/advi-1.6.0/debian/control 2005-04-29 20:13:09.834629142 +0200
+++ ./debian/control 2005-04-29 20:13:02.436753790 +0200
@@ -3,7 +3,7 @@
Priority: optional
Maintainer: Debian OCaml Maintainers <debian-ocaml-maint@lists.debian.org>
Uploaders: Ralf Treinen <treinen@debian.org>, Sven Luther <luther@debian.org>, Jerome Marant <jerome@debian.org>, Remi Vanicat <vanicat@debian.org>, Stefano Zacchiroli <zack@debian.org>, Sylvain Le Gall <sylvain.le-gall@polytechnique.org>, Michael K. Edwards (in Debian context) <mkedeb@sane.net>
-Build-Depends: debhelper (>> 4.0.0), tetex-bin, ocaml-3.08.3, libncurses5-dev, xlibs-dev, libcamlimages-ocaml-dev (>= 2.20-1), tetex-extra, zlib1g-dev, gs, dpatch, chrpath, ocaml-best-compilers, hevea
+Build-Depends: debhelper, groff-base, tetex-bin, ocaml-3.08.3, libncurses5-dev, xlibs-dev, libcamlimages-ocaml-dev (>= 2.20-1), tetex-extra, zlib1g-dev, gs, dpatch, chrpath, ocaml-best-compilers, hevea
Standards-Version: 3.6.1
Package: advi
---------------------------------------
Received: (at 307919-done) by bugs.debian.org; 10 May 2005 22:15:40 +0000
>From frank@lichtenheld.de Tue May 10 15:15:40 2005
Return-path: <frank@lichtenheld.de>
Received: from higgs.djpig.de [213.133.98.126]
by spohr.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian))
id 1DVd0u-00013T-00; Tue, 10 May 2005 15:15:40 -0700
Received: from djpig by higgs.djpig.de with local (Exim 4.50)
id 1DVd0p-0004gy-VC; Wed, 11 May 2005 00:15:36 +0200
Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 00:15:35 +0200
From: Frank Lichtenheld <djpig@debian.org>
To: 307919-done@bugs.debian.org
Subject: Re: Bug#307919: The buggy version is still in sarge
Message-ID: <20050510221535.GC8420@djpig.de>
References: <E1DU8my-0007CK-00@newraff.debian.org> <[🔎] 20050506131911.GA1575@andaco.de> <handler.307919.D307919.11154092038863.notifdone@bugs.debian.org> <[🔎] 20050507065324.GA9442@andaco.de>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <[🔎] 20050507065324.GA9442@andaco.de>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i
Delivered-To: 307919-done@bugs.debian.org
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02
(1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on spohr.debian.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-8.0 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_00,HAS_BUG_NUMBER,
VALID_BTS_CONTROL autolearn=no version=2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02
X-Spam-Level:
X-CrossAssassin-Score: 2
tags 307919 - sarge
thanks
On Sat, May 07, 2005 at 08:53:24AM +0200, Andreas Jochens wrote:
> reopen 307919
> tags 307919 +sarge
> thanks
Fixed version reached testing.
Gruesse,
--
Frank Lichtenheld <djpig@debian.org>
www: http://www.djpig.de/
Reply to: