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

Bug#537011: [Build-common-hackers] Bug#537011: ocaml-gettext: FTBFS: Error: Files gettextModules.cmx and gettextConfig.cmx make inconsistent assumptions over implementation GettextConfig



-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 06:55:31PM +0200, Stéphane Glondu wrote:
>Stéphane Glondu a écrit :
>> Here is the aptitude log for the last upgrade of the chroot:
>>   [...]
>>   [UPGRADE] cdbs 0.4.56 -> 0.4.57
>>   [...]
>> The bug must have been introduced by one of these packages.
>
>The guilty appears to be cdbs... Actually, there is little doubt:
>
> 1. login into a clean squeeze chroot
> 2. install ocaml-gettext build-dependencies
> 3. ugrade the chroot to sid, but keep squeeze version of cdbs
> 4. the build of ocaml-gettext is successful
> 5. upgrade cdbs
> 6. ocaml-gettext FTBFS
>
>Lucas, haven't you observed other build failures with packages using cdbs?
>
>I'm not yet sure whether this bug should be reaffected to cdbs... I am
>bcc'ing them to see what they think.

Confirmed: This is a cdbs bug!

It is a regression caused by the following change in cdbs release 0.4.57 
(Git commit 93d5ac):

   * Fix autotools.mk not completing all dependencies of post-patches
     before doing configure.

The configure target was made to depend on post-patches - but that is a 
double-colon rule so is always remade :-P

Sorry - my fault :-(


  - Jonas

- -- 
* Jonas Smedegaard - idealist og Internet-arkitekt
* Tlf.: +45 40843136  Website: http://dr.jones.dk/

  [x] quote me freely  [ ] ask before reusing  [ ] keep private
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
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=eXUl
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----



Reply to: