Processing control commands:
> notfound -1 gpgme1.0/1.18.0-3
Bug #1039724 [src:gpgme1.0] gpgme: building underbookworm fails with no matches
in python3-gpg.install
No longer marked as found in versions gpgme1.0/1.18.0-3.
> tags -1 wontfix - ftbfs moreinfo
Bug #1039724 [src:gpgme1.0] gpgme:
Control: notfound -1 gpgme1.0/1.18.0-3
Control: tags -1 wontfix - ftbfs moreinfo
Control: severity -1 minor
Tagging this according to the conversation.
Thank you for pointing this out. I have removed python3-setuptools and
successfully built gpgme1.0.
For fun I will see if I can figure out how to add this to Conflicts.
On Wed, Jul 5, 2023 at 12:30 PM Andreas Metzler wrote:
> On 2023-07-04 Ted wrote:
> > The only software which has ever run
On 2023-07-04 Ted wrote:
> The only software which has ever run here is from a bookworm or vscodim
> repo so i will just wait for bookworm to stabilize and hope i can abandon
> the workarounds in the future.
Hello,
You were right all the time. python3-setuptools is the culprit,
installing it
The only software which has ever run here is from a bookworm or vscodim
repo so i will just wait for bookworm to stabilize and hope i can abandon
the workarounds in the future.
On Tue, Jul 4, 2023, 12:58 PM Andreas Metzler wrote:
> On 2023-07-03 Ted wrote:
> > Just to keep updated, I checked
On 2023-07-03 Ted wrote:
> Just to keep updated, I checked if all build deps have updates in
> bookworm-updates and bookworm-security, but didn't find anything. I also
> checked to make sure that the package versions i'm using for all build
> dependencies are equal to the latest in bookworm.
You
On 2023-07-03 Andreas Metzler wrote:
[...]
> As I wrote before I /suspect/ because you have some outdated locally
> installed python modules and have configured the system to use them in
> preference to the system installed ones.
To provide some more detail: Your buildlogs lack this exact
On 2023-07-03 Ted wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 2, 2023 at 8:08 PM Ted wrote:
[...]
> > If I want to ensure that my packages build well, I can use a chroot, but
> > this is not actually something that a package should assume. Chroots are a
> > way to mitigate broad sources of brittleness, but we
Or more specifically, why does the debian source package occasionally make
the incorrect decision to build differently and use the deprecated path?
On Sun, Jul 2, 2023 at 8:08 PM Ted wrote:
> This is correct that my environment is not clean. Most packages are
> compatible with DEB_CFLAGS_SET
This is correct that my environment is not clean. Most packages are
compatible with DEB_CFLAGS_SET flags. Just to be sure, I posted the second
build log, where CFLAGS is set to be empty.
Debuild is normally fine for package builds outside of a chroot.
I use debian packages.
If I want to ensure
On 2023-07-01 Ted wrote:
> Build still fails under debuild with no funny flags. Here's log.
[...]
Hello,
Looking at the log it looks like your are overriding CFLAGS somewhere
(-g -O2 -ffile-prefix-map=/... is missing).
This warning is missing in your log:
Processing control commands:
> tags -1 - patch
Bug #1039724 [src:gpgme1.0] gpgme: building underbookworm fails with no matches
in python3-gpg.install
Removed tag(s) patch.
> tags -1 moreinfo
Bug #1039724 [src:gpgme1.0] gpgme: building underbookworm fails with no matches
in python3-gpg.install
Control: tags -1 - patch
Control: tags -1 moreinfo
On 2023-06-28 Theodoric Stier wrote:
> Package: gpgme
> Severity: serious
> Tags: ftbfs patch
> Justification: fails to build from source (but built successfully in the past)
> X-Debbugs-Cc: kerd...@gmail.com
> Dear Maintainer,
> Trying to
Package: gpgme
Severity: serious
Tags: ftbfs patch
Justification: fails to build from source (but built successfully in the past)
X-Debbugs-Cc: kerd...@gmail.com
Dear Maintainer,
Trying to build bookworm from source under bookworm, this package fails owing
to subject matter.
I run the following
14 matches
Mail list logo
