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

Bug#149429: apt-get source yields different source tree than dpkg-source -x



Package: apt
Version: 0.5.4

Hello

I just found a case where "apt-get source uucp" yields a different
source directory than unpacking the files manually by "dpkg-source -x
uucp_1.06.1-18.dsc".

Here are the steps I have taken:

1. fetch und unpack source
   $ apt-get source uucp

2. rename directory 

   $ mv uucp-1.06.1 uucp-apt

3. manually unpack the source

   $ dpkg-source -x uucp_1.06.1-18.dsc

4. look at the difference

   $ diff -ru uucp-apt/ uucp-1.06.1/
diff -ru uucp-apt/policy.h uucp-1.06.1/policy.h
--- uucp-apt/policy.h   Sun Jun  9 11:03:10 2002
+++ uucp-1.06.1/policy.h        Sun Jun  9 10:59:57 2002
@@ -430,7 +430,7 @@
    in.  When initially testing, DEBUG should be 2, and you should
    probably leave it at 2 unless a small reduction in the executable
    file size will be very helpful.  */
-#define DEBUG 2
+#define DEBUG 1
 
 /* Set HAVE_ENCRYPTED_PASSWORDS to 1 if you want login passwords to be
    encrypted before comparing them against the values in the file.

This diff is part of the uucp_1.06.1-18.diff.gz file distributed with
uucp.

The DEBUG setting which is different 'cause of this bug can also be
found in the binary package (i.e., in the binary package the value is
2, if I compile the package created by "dpkg-source -x" it is set to
1).

I checked both the apt and dpkg-dev bugs and couldn't find there
anything similiar.

        Torsten

Here are the dependencies:

ii  libc6          2.2.5-6        GNU C Library: Shared libraries and Timezone
ii  libstdc++2.10- 2.95.4-8       The GNU stdc++ library
ii  dpkg-dev       1.9.21         Package building tools for Debian


BTW: I don't know if dpkg-dev might be the correct place to report to.
     But the bug occurs only when apt calls dpkg-source.



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to deity-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org



Reply to: