Bug#793121: marked as done (ocaml-fdkaac: FTBFS in pbuilder: error: configure script must not be run with root user!)
Your message dated Wed, 22 Jul 2015 10:44:57 +0200
with message-id <55AF5809.6060909@debian.org>
and subject line Re: Bug#793121: ocaml-fdkaac: FTBFS in pbuilder: error: configure script must not be run with root user!
has caused the Debian Bug report #793121,
regarding ocaml-fdkaac: FTBFS in pbuilder: error: configure script must not be run with root user!
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 this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact owner@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)
--
793121: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=793121
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Package: ocaml-fdkaac
Version: 0.2.0-1
Severity: serious
Justification: fails to build from source
ocaml-fdkaac fails to build in pbuilder. I don't know if it fails in
sbuild as well, since I don't have a sbuild setup.
Since the package is in non-free and has Build-Depends from non-free
as well it cannot be built on the buildd network and is also not
tested by the regular archive wide rebuild tests, so this bug has gone
unnoticed for some time.
dh_auto_configure
./configure --build=x86_64-linux-gnu --prefix=/usr --includedir=\${prefix}/include --mandir=\${prefix}/share/man --infodir=\${prefix}/share/info --sysconfdir=/etc --localstatedir=/var --disable-silent-rules --libexecdir=\${prefix}/lib/ocaml-fdkaac --disable-maintainer-mode --disable-dependency-tracking
configure: WARNING: unrecognized options: --disable-silent-rules, --disable-maintainer-mode, --disable-dependency-tracking
configuring ocaml-fdkaac 0.2.0
checking for gcc... gcc
checking whether the C compiler works... yes
checking for C compiler default output file name... a.out
checking for suffix of executables...
checking whether we are cross compiling... no
checking for suffix of object files... o
checking whether we are using the GNU C compiler... yes
checking whether gcc accepts -g... yes
checking for gcc option to accept ISO C89... none needed
checking build system type... x86_64-pc-linux-gnu
checking host system type... x86_64-pc-linux-gnu
checking for a BSD-compatible install... /usr/bin/install -c
checking that calling user is not root... configure: error: configure script must not be run with root user!
"tail -v -n +0 config.log"
[snip config.log output]
pbuilder is definitively not running the build as root, so
that check for root seems to be bogus.
Trying to refresh the build system does not work:
ocaml-fdkaac-0.2.0$ autoreconf -f -i
configure.ac:8: error: possibly undefined macro: AC_BASE_CHECKS
If this token and others are legitimate, please use m4_pattern_allow.
See the Autoconf documentation.
configure.ac:19: error: possibly undefined macro: PKG_CONFIG_CHECK_MODULE
autoreconf: /usr/bin/autoconf failed with exit status: 1
Andreas
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Le 21/07/2015 18:25, Andreas Beckmann a écrit :
> sudo pbuilder --build --basetgz /var/cache/pbuilder/base-sid.tgz
> ocaml-fdkaac_0.2.0-1.1.dsc
>
> fails here with pbuilder 0.215+nmu3 (+ the binNMU patch) and sudo
> 1.8.10p3-1+deb8u2
I'm using pbuilder 0.215+nmu4. In the changes from 0.215+nmu3, one can read:
> * set the USER env variable to BUILDUSERNAME, to fix FTBFS of some package
> which check for not being run as root using that variable.
> Thanks to Tim Landscheidt <tim@tim-landscheidt.de> for the initial patch.
> Closes: #677666
Hendrik Tews argues in [1] that USER not being set correctly is a bug in
pbuilder and I agree.
[1] https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=670733#27
Besides, this bug occurs only when using pbuilder (not with sbuild, not
on the buildd).
Therefore, I'm closing this bug.
Cheers,
--
Stéphane
--- End Message ---
Reply to: