Bug#486955: might be caused by a dpkg-dev regression?
- To: Lucas Nussbaum <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Cc: email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com
- Subject: Bug#486955: might be caused by a dpkg-dev regression?
- From: Raphael Hertzog <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2008 12:18:35 +0200
- Message-id: <20080619101835.GB21398@ouaza.com>
- Reply-to: Raphael Hertzog <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org
- In-reply-to: <20080619092142.GA29901@xanadu.blop.info>
- References: <20080619092142.GA29901@xanadu.blop.info>
On Thu, 19 Jun 2008, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> I figured this out too late, but it seems that all those bugs are caused
> by a dpkg-dev regression.
> Bug#486987: sugar-toolkit: FTBFS: new copyright notices
> Bug#486979: sugar-datastore: FTBFS: new copyright notices
> Bug#486975: sugar-web-activity: FTBFS: new copyright notices
> Bug#487002: sugar-pippy-activity: FTBFS: new copyright notices
> Bug#486961: sugar-chat-activity: FTBFS: new copyright notices
> Bug#486984: sugar: FTBFS: new copyright notices
> Bug#487001: sugar-journal-activity: FTBFS: new copyright notices
Those are related to a licensecheck improvement. Those checks should
really go away and be run by the maintainer when he wants to check it
and not automatically on build.
> Bug#486982: gnomesword: FTBFS: patching failed
> Bug#486955: jack-tools: FTBFS: patching failed
> Bug#486988: bibledit: FTBFS: patching failed
> Bug#486996: gpib: FTBFS: patching failed
Those might be related to the change made on quilt:
It might be that CDBS packages using tarball in tarball and the quilt
patching were implicitely using this feature... if that's the case I'd
like to know how many packages are affected to be able to decide
if we should revert that change.
Can you retry all the packages that might be affected by this with quilt
0.46-4.1 instead of 0.46-5 ?
> There are a few other candidates I haven't filed (new failure && package
> using quilt ; false positives highly possible):
A few random packages analyzed:
=> also related to licensecheck
=> related to quilt
The bigger one like icedove and iceowl are probably related too.
Le best-seller français mis à jour pour Debian Etch :