Bug#618239: ijs: FTBFS: /bin/bash: ijs_spec.ps: command not found
On Sun, Mar 13, 2011 at 06:40:50PM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> Source: ijs
> Version: 0.35-7
> Severity: serious
> Tags: wheezy sid
> User: debian-qa@lists.debian.org
> Usertags: qa-ftbfs-20110313 qa-ftbfs
> Justification: FTBFS on amd64
>
> Hi,
>
> During a rebuild of all packages in sid, your package failed to build on
> amd64.
>
> Relevant part:
> > make[1]: Entering directory `/build/user-ijs_0.35-7-amd64-FNpjj_/ijs-0.35'
> > /usr/bin/db2ps ijs_spec.sgml
> > Using catalogs: /etc/sgml/catalog
> > Using stylesheet: /usr/share/docbook-utils/docbook-utils.dsl#print
> > Working on: /build/user-ijs_0.35-7-amd64-FNpjj_/ijs-0.35/ijs_spec.sgml
> > x -i print -d /usr/share/docbook-utils/docbook-utils.dsl#print -V paper-type=A4 /build/user-ijs_0.35-7-amd64-FNpjj_/ijs-0.35/ijs_spec.sgml
> > Done.
> > ijs_spec.ps
> > /bin/bash: ijs_spec.ps: command not found
> > make[1]: *** [ijs_spec.pdf] Error 127
>
I have just done an NMU to fix this longstanding issue. Please find the
diff below.
diff -u ijs-0.35/debian/changelog ijs-0.35/debian/changelog
--- ijs-0.35/debian/changelog
+++ ijs-0.35/debian/changelog
@@ -1,3 +1,10 @@
+ijs (0.35-7.1) unstable; urgency=low
+
+ * Non-maintainer upload.
+ * Build-Depend on ghostscript. Closes: #618239.
+
+ -- Aurelien Jarno <aurel32@debian.org> Mon, 01 Aug 2011 09:14:55 +0200
+
ijs (0.35-7) unstable; urgency=low
* Update config.{sub,guess}.
diff -u ijs-0.35/debian/control ijs-0.35/debian/control
--- ijs-0.35/debian/control
+++ ijs-0.35/debian/control
@@ -2,7 +2,7 @@
Section: text
Priority: optional
Maintainer: Bradley Smith <bradsmith@debian.org>
-Build-Depends: debhelper (>= 7), gs-common, docbook, docbook-utils, autotools-dev
+Build-Depends: debhelper (>= 7), ghostscript, gs-common, docbook, docbook-utils, autotools-dev
Standards-Version: 3.8.1
Homepage: http://www.linuxprinting.org/ijs/
Vcs-Git: http://git.brad-smith.co.uk/git/debian/pkg-ijs.git
--
Aurelien Jarno GPG: 1024D/F1BCDB73
aurelien@aurel32.net http://www.aurel32.net
Reply to: