Jon Marler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (12/12/2006): > Quoting Thomas Huriaux <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > Package: qmail > > Version: 1.03-40 > > Severity: serious > > > > Using pbuilder in an i386 chroot: > > > > [...] > > ( ./auto-uid auto_uida `head -1 conf-users` \ > > &&./auto-uid auto_uidd `head -2 conf-users | tail -1` \ > > &&./auto-uid auto_uidl `head -3 conf-users | tail -1` \ > > &&./auto-uid auto_uido `head -4 conf-users | tail -1` \ > > &&./auto-uid auto_uidp `head -5 conf-users | tail -1` \ > > &&./auto-uid auto_uidq `head -6 conf-users | tail -1` \ > > &&./auto-uid auto_uidr `head -7 conf-users | tail -1` \ > > &&./auto-uid auto_uids `head -8 conf-users | tail -1` \ > > &&./auto-gid auto_gidq `head -1 conf-groups` \ > > &&./auto-gid auto_gidn `head -2 conf-groups | tail -1` \ > > ) > auto_uids.c.tmp && mv auto_uids.c.tmp auto_uids.c > > fatal: unable to find user alias > > make[1]: *** [auto_uids.c] Error 111 > > make[1]: Leaving directory `/tmp/buildd/qmail-1.03' > > make: *** [build] Error 2 > > pbuilder: Failed autobuilding of package > > [...] > > > > This pops up now and again ... You have attempted to build the package > without installing it first. If you install the package, the install > scripts will create that user for you. > > If you don't want to do that, feel free to add any missing users > yourself. > > If you want to know why this is an issue, ask the people than fund > Debian, as they are the ones that demanded the "qmail users" be > removed from the default passwd file because qmail is considered > "non-free" If you dig through the old bug reports for qmail-src, you > will see a bug that added in the code to add the users.
? I was trying to build the qmail-src package from the Debian qmail source package, not the "real" qmail package from the qmail-src package. I don't understand why an automated debianization requires existing users to succeed. Or I may not have understood the purpose of the qmail-src package. Note also that if it is a known issue that you don't want to fix, you should mark the bug as wontfix instead of closing the bugs. I never parse closed bugs before reporting a current issue (and I don't believe being the only one acting like that). This will avoid this popping up now and again. Cheers, -- Thomas Huriaux
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
