Bug#457961: Fwd: Re: Dillo failing to unpatch
----- Forwarded message from Nicolas Valcarcel <nvalcarcel@gmail.com> -----
From: Nicolas Valcarcel <nvalcarcel@gmail.com>
To: "Nelson A. de Oliveira" <naoliv@debian.org>
Cc: Patrick Schoenfeld <schoenfeld@in-medias-res.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2007 10:22:13 -0500
Subject: Re: Dillo failing to unpatch
I have already done that, but there is 102 .rej files
On Thu, 2007-12-27 at 03:15 -0200, Nelson A. de Oliveira wrote:
> Hi Nicolas!
>
> About your message on debian-qa [1], probably you are talking about [2],
> right?
>
> Well, indeed it's failing to unpatch on the second run and the probable
> guiltys are:
>
> (...)
> patching file config.guess
> Hunk #1 FAILED at 1.
> Hunk #2 FAILED at 53.
> Hunk #3 FAILED at 106.
> Hunk #4 FAILED at 203.
> Hunk #5 FAILED at 227.
> Hunk #6 FAILED at 245.
> Hunk #7 FAILED at 319.
> Hunk #8 FAILED at 342.
> Hunk #9 FAILED at 755.
> Hunk #10 FAILED at 778.
> Hunk #11 FAILED at 789.
> Hunk #12 FAILED at 804.
> Hunk #13 FAILED at 827.
> Hunk #14 FAILED at 917.
> Hunk #15 succeeded at 1004 with fuzz 2 (offset 27 lines).
> Hunk #16 FAILED at 1109.
> Hunk #17 FAILED at 1209.
> Hunk #18 FAILED at 1227.
> Hunk #19 FAILED at 1277.
> 18 out of 19 hunks FAILED -- saving rejects to file config.guess.rej
> (...)
> patching file config.sub
> Hunk #1 FAILED at 1.
> Hunk #2 FAILED at 70.
> Hunk #3 FAILED at 145.
> Hunk #4 FAILED at 237.
> Hunk #5 FAILED at 264.
> Hunk #6 FAILED at 300.
> Hunk #7 FAILED at 310.
> Hunk #8 FAILED at 326.
> Hunk #9 FAILED at 343.
> Hunk #10 FAILED at 446.
> Hunk #11 succeeded at 490 with fuzz 2 (offset 33 lines).
> Hunk #12 succeeded at 526 with fuzz 2 (offset 37 lines).
> Hunk #13 FAILED at 708.
> Hunk #14 FAILED at 788.
> Hunk #15 FAILED at 834.
> Hunk #16 succeeded at 932 with fuzz 2 (offset 59 lines).
> Hunk #17 succeeded at 949 with fuzz 2 (offset 65 lines).
> Hunk #18 FAILED at 1026.
> Hunk #19 succeeded at 1098 with fuzz 2 (offset 65 lines).
> Hunk #20 succeeded at 1135 with fuzz 2 (offset 68 lines).
> Hunk #21 succeeded at 1273 with fuzz 2 (offset 71 lines).
> Hunk #22 succeeded at 1379 with fuzz 2 (offset 74 lines).
> Hunk #23 succeeded at 1422 with fuzz 2 (offset 83 lines).
> Hunk #24 succeeded at 1480 with fuzz 2 (offset 92 lines).
> 14 out of 24 hunks FAILED -- saving rejects to file config.sub.rej
> (...)
>
> Just in case you want to see exactly what is wrong, you can build the
> package (dpkg-buildpackage, for example) and then try to revert the
> patch (cat debian/patches/01_i18n | patch -R -p1).
> It will save the .rej files (you can see that the changes aren't big).
>
> The responsible for the patch (as noted inside debian/patches/01_i18n)
> can be contacted via webmaster@teki.jpn.ph
> Homepage of the patch is http://teki.jpn.ph/pc/software/index-e.shtml
>
> But I don't think that there is something wrong with his patch.
>
> I am CCing Patrick, who did the QA work of the last upload of dillo.
>
> It's also a problem for the Debian package, since it needs to build
> twice without failing. Not a big problem, but a problem :-)
>
> [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-qa/2007/12/msg00188.html
> [2] https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/dillo/+bug/178046
>
> Best regards,
> Nelson
--
aka nxvl
key fingerprint: E140 4CC7 5E3C B6B4 DCA7 F6FD D22E 2FB4 A9BA 6877
gpg --keyserver keyserver.ubuntu.com --recv-keys A9BA6877
Yo uso Software Libre y tu?
----- End forwarded message -----
Reply to: