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

[Pkg-octave-devel] Bug#538623: marked as done (octave-epstk: FTBFS with new source format 3.0 (quilt): fails double build)

Your message dated Fri, 31 Dec 2010 22:50:26 +0100
with message-id <20101231215026.GA21381@atlan>
and subject line Re: [Pkg-octave-devel] Bug#538623: octave-epstk: FTBFS with new source format 3.0 (quilt): fails double build
has caused the Debian Bug report #538623,
regarding octave-epstk: FTBFS with new source format 3.0 (quilt): fails double build
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.)


-- 
538623: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=538623
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message --- 
Package: octave-epstk
Version: 2.2-14
Severity: wishlist
Usertags: 3.0-quilt-by-default

To prepare a possible switch to the new source package format "3.0
(quilt)" [1], I converted all source packages and rebuilt the packages
afterwards to see what breaks, and octave-epstk does break. To reproduce the
problem you can do this:
$ apt-get source octave-epstk
$ mkdir -p octave-epstk-2.2/debian/source
$ echo "3.0 (quilt)" >octave-epstk-2.2/debian/source/format
$ dpkg-source -b octave-epstk-2.2
$ dpkg-source -x octave-epstk_2.2-14.dsc
$ cd octave-epstk-2.2 && debuild -us -uc

In this process, if the .diff.gz contains changes to upstream files,
dpkg-source will have created a corresponding patch in
debian/patches/debian-changes-2.2-14 and will have registered that
patch in a quilt series (debian/patches/series, it is created if needed).
All the patches listed in the "series" file are applied directly during
the extraction (dpkg-source -x). quilt itself is used if available (and
will thus lead to the creation of the .pc directory), otherwise
dpkg-source applies the patches by itself. For more information about the
new source package format see the manual page dpkg-source(1).

In the case of octave-epstk, it doesn't build twice in a row and since the
code above build the source package twice, it leads to the same failure.
Not sure exactly why...

Cheers,

[1] http://wiki.debian.org/Projects/DebSrc3.0

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- 
Package: octave-epstk
Version: 2.3-1
thanks

On Sun, Jul 26, 2009 at 12:54:59AM +0200, hertzog@debian.org wrote:
> To prepare a possible switch to the new source package format "3.0
> (quilt)" [1], I converted all source packages and rebuilt the packages
> afterwards to see what breaks, and octave-epstk does break. To reproduce the
> problem you can do this:
> $ apt-get source octave-epstk
> $ mkdir -p octave-epstk-2.2/debian/source
> $ echo "3.0 (quilt)" >octave-epstk-2.2/debian/source/format
> $ dpkg-source -b octave-epstk-2.2
> $ dpkg-source -x octave-epstk_2.2-14.dsc
> $ cd octave-epstk-2.2 && debuild -us -uc
> 
> In this process, if the .diff.gz contains changes to upstream files,
> dpkg-source will have created a corresponding patch in
> debian/patches/debian-changes-2.2-14 and will have registered that
> patch in a quilt series (debian/patches/series, it is created if needed).
> All the patches listed in the "series" file are applied directly during
> the extraction (dpkg-source -x). quilt itself is used if available (and
> will thus lead to the creation of the .pc directory), otherwise
> dpkg-source applies the patches by itself. For more information about the
> new source package format see the manual page dpkg-source(1).
> 
> In the case of octave-epstk, it doesn't build twice in a row and since the
> code above build the source package twice, it leads to the same failure.
> Not sure exactly why...

With 2.3-1, octave-epstk switched to using the quilt 3.0 format. I can't
reproduce this issue anymore. I'm not sure the actual switch caused
this, maybe it was the removal of one the formerly applied patches. 

Anyway, closing the bug.

	Thomas

--- End Message ---
Reply to: