On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 13:40:52 -0500 Michael Gilbert wrote: > On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 18:27:52 +0000, Adam D. Barratt wrote: > > On Fri, 2010-01-22 at 13:14 -0500, Michael Gilbert wrote: > > > On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 17:41:11 +0000, Adam D. Barratt wrote: > > > > Apologies for not spotting it earlier, but the python2.4 diff is broken > > > > (as is the 2.5 diff, for the same reasons). The package doesn't build > > > > depend on dpatch, so attempting to use patches starting > > > > > > > > #! /bin/sh /usr/share/dpatch/dpatch-run > > > > > > > > is destined to fail in a clean build environment. > > > > > > > > The patches need reworking to use an application method that doesn't > > > > depend on dpatch (i.e. the method used by the pre-existing patches). > > > > > > ok, it looked like the package was using dpatch, but upon further > > > inspection, you are correct, it is using some weird cross-breed of > > > a patch system. > > > > I have to admit that I thought it was using dpatch until I tried a test > > build to try and replicate the pybench failure. > > > > > i was able to build the package outside of a vm, and the pybench test > > > succeeded. so it looks like i can get rid of those changes. > > > > That's good news. > > > > For completeness, please could you provide updated debdiffs for the > > python2.4 and python2.5 updates? The python-xml diff is fine for upload > > as-is. > > yes, i was planning to do so, but not until late tonight. attached are the new debdiffs. please review. mike
Attachment:
python2.4.debdiff
Description: Binary data
Attachment:
python2.5.debdiff
Description: Binary data