apt-src cannot build
I do the following (irrelevant output omitted): 8< /usr/src/tmp$ apt-src install foo /usr/src/tmp$ cd foo-version /usr/src/tmp/foo-version$ apt-src build foo E: Not installed /usr/src/tmp/foo-version$ >8 Any idea what might be wrong? - Marcus Sundman -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: apt-src cannot build
On Thu, Feb 17, 2005 at 06:19:59AM +0200, Marcus Sundman wrote: > I do the following (irrelevant output omitted): > 8< > /usr/src/tmp$ apt-src install foo > /usr/src/tmp$ cd foo-version > /usr/src/tmp/foo-version$ apt-src build foo > E: Not installed > /usr/src/tmp/foo-version$ > >8 > > Any idea what might be wrong? You don't have to enter to foo-version directory. Anyway it should work even with that... both ways works for me. regards fEnIo -- ,''`. Bartosz Fenski | mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] | pgp:0x13fefc40 | irc:fEnIo : :' : 32-050 Skawina - Glowackiego 3/15 - w. malopolskie - Polska `. `' phone:+48602383548 | proud Debian maintainer and user `- http://skawina.eu.org | jid:[EMAIL PROTECTED] | rlu:172001 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: apt-src cannot build
On Thu, Feb 17, 2005 at 03:09:41PM +0200, Marcus Sundman wrote: > On Thursday 17 February 2005 13:18, Bartosz Fenski aka fEnIo wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 17, 2005 at 06:19:59AM +0200, Marcus Sundman wrote: > > > I do the following (irrelevant output omitted): > > > 8< > > > /usr/src/tmp$ apt-src install foo > > > /usr/src/tmp$ cd foo-version > > > /usr/src/tmp/foo-version$ apt-src build foo > > > E: Not installed > > > /usr/src/tmp/foo-version$ > > > >8 > > > > > > Any idea what might be wrong? > > > > You don't have to enter to foo-version directory. > > Anyway it should work even with that... both ways works for me. > > I tried that, too, but it still just says "E: Not installed". > > What's "E" and what's not installed? (This must be one of the least helpful > error messages I've ever seen.) E means "error". Are you sure all build dependencies are installed ? apt-get build-dep foo Michael -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: apt-src cannot build
On Thursday 17 February 2005 21:32, Michael Koch wrote: > On Thu, Feb 17, 2005 at 03:09:41PM +0200, Marcus Sundman wrote: > > On Thursday 17 February 2005 13:18, Bartosz Fenski aka fEnIo wrote: > > > On Thu, Feb 17, 2005 at 06:19:59AM +0200, Marcus Sundman wrote: > > > > I do the following (irrelevant output omitted): > > > > 8< > > > > /usr/src/tmp$ apt-src install foo > > > > /usr/src/tmp$ cd foo-version > > > > /usr/src/tmp/foo-version$ apt-src build foo > > > > E: Not installed > > > > /usr/src/tmp/foo-version$ > > > > >8 > > > > > > > > Any idea what might be wrong? > > > > > > You don't have to enter to foo-version directory. > > > Anyway it should work even with that... both ways works for me. > > > > I tried that, too, but it still just says "E: Not installed". > > > > What's "E" and what's not installed? (This must be one of the least > > helpful error messages I've ever seen.) > > E means "error". Ah, ok.. (If the author tried to be confusing he could have made it say "Blue: No roof" or something. Although on a second thought that probably would have been too obvious and made ppl check out the source, and this way he got it actually more confusing by being less confusing. Clever.) > Are you sure all build dependencies are installed ? No. "apt-src install foo" installed a lot of stuff, so I guessed it was OK and didn't know how to fix it even if it wasn't OK. > apt-get build-dep foo That didn't seem to do anything but apparently it did the trick because now it works. Thanks!!! (It would be nice if the man page of apt-src would state that "build" requires doing an "apt-get build-dep".) Best regards, - Marcus Sundman -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: apt-src cannot build
On Thursday 17 February 2005 13:18, Bartosz Fenski aka fEnIo wrote: > On Thu, Feb 17, 2005 at 06:19:59AM +0200, Marcus Sundman wrote: > > I do the following (irrelevant output omitted): > > 8< > > /usr/src/tmp$ apt-src install foo > > /usr/src/tmp$ cd foo-version > > /usr/src/tmp/foo-version$ apt-src build foo > > E: Not installed > > /usr/src/tmp/foo-version$ > > >8 > > > > Any idea what might be wrong? > > You don't have to enter to foo-version directory. > Anyway it should work even with that... both ways works for me. I tried that, too, but it still just says "E: Not installed". What's "E" and what's not installed? (This must be one of the least helpful error messages I've ever seen.) - Marcus Sundman -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: apt-src cannot build
On Thu, Feb 17, 2005 at 04:26:12PM +0200, Marcus Sundman wrote:
> On Thursday 17 February 2005 21:32, Michael Koch wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 17, 2005 at 03:09:41PM +0200, Marcus Sundman wrote:
> > > On Thursday 17 February 2005 13:18, Bartosz Fenski aka fEnIo wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Feb 17, 2005 at 06:19:59AM +0200, Marcus Sundman wrote:
> > > > > I do the following (irrelevant output omitted):
> > > > > 8<
> > > > > /usr/src/tmp$ apt-src install foo
> > > > > /usr/src/tmp$ cd foo-version
> > > > > /usr/src/tmp/foo-version$ apt-src build foo
> > > > > E: Not installed
> > > > > /usr/src/tmp/foo-version$
> > > > > >8
> > > > >
> > > > > Any idea what might be wrong?
> > > >
> > > > You don't have to enter to foo-version directory.
> > > > Anyway it should work even with that... both ways works for me.
> > >
> > > I tried that, too, but it still just says "E: Not installed".
> > >
> > > What's "E" and what's not installed? (This must be one of the least
> > > helpful error messages I've ever seen.)
> >
> > E means "error".
>
> Ah, ok.. (If the author tried to be confusing he could have made it say
> "Blue: No roof" or something. Although on a second thought that probably
> would have been too obvious and made ppl check out the source, and this way
> he got it actually more confusing by being less confusing. Clever.)
The addition of one compound-word ("Build-dependencies") would have solved
all of your ills. The BTS is ---> over there.
> (It would be nice if the man page of apt-src would state that "build"
> requires doing an "apt-get build-dep".)
Again, BTS ---> over there, and besides, it's not required to do an apt-get
build-dep if you've already got all of the relevant packages installed.
- Matt
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Re: apt-src cannot build
On Thursday 17 February 2005 22:44, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 17, 2005 at 04:26:12PM +0200, Marcus Sundman wrote:
> > On Thursday 17 February 2005 21:32, Michael Koch wrote:
> > > On Thu, Feb 17, 2005 at 03:09:41PM +0200, Marcus Sundman wrote:
> > > > On Thursday 17 February 2005 13:18, Bartosz Fenski aka fEnIo wrote:
> > > > > On Thu, Feb 17, 2005 at 06:19:59AM +0200, Marcus Sundman wrote:
> > > > > > I do the following (irrelevant output omitted):
> > > > > > 8<
> > > > > > /usr/src/tmp$ apt-src install foo
> > > > > > /usr/src/tmp$ cd foo-version
> > > > > > /usr/src/tmp/foo-version$ apt-src build foo
> > > > > > E: Not installed
> > > > > > /usr/src/tmp/foo-version$
> > > > > > >8
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Any idea what might be wrong?
> > > > >
> > > > > You don't have to enter to foo-version directory.
> > > > > Anyway it should work even with that... both ways works for me.
> > > >
> > > > I tried that, too, but it still just says "E: Not installed".
> > > >
> > > > What's "E" and what's not installed? (This must be one of the least
> > > > helpful error messages I've ever seen.)
> > >
> > > E means "error".
> >
> > Ah, ok.. (If the author tried to be confusing he could have made it say
> > "Blue: No roof" or something. Although on a second thought that
> > probably would have been too obvious and made ppl check out the source,
> > and this way he got it actually more confusing by being less confusing.
> > Clever.)
>
> The addition of one compound-word ("Build-dependencies") would have
> solved all of your ills.
Really? Where do you feel this compound-word should be added?
The man page of apt-src already talks about build-dependencies, and says
that "apt-src install" "will make sure that the build-dependencies [...]
are satisfied". Since I just ran "apt-src install" I would assume that the
build-dependencies are satisfied. The man page doesn't say that these
dependencies would have to be fixed manually or even how one would go about
doing that if ever there was a need for it. (Mentioning "apt-get build-dep"
on that man page would have been nice.)
The man page of apt-src also says that "it can be run as a normal user, or
as root". Good, I thought, then I'll run it as root as little as possible.
So I ran "apt-src install foo" (which installed a gazillion packages that
apparently can't even be marked as "auto" in aptitude (argh!)) as root and
then "apt-src build foo" as a normal user. -> "E: Not installed" WTF?
> The BTS is ---> over there.
Huh? What is over where?
> > (It would be nice if the man page of apt-src would state that "build"
> > requires doing an "apt-get build-dep".)
>
> Again, BTS ---> over there, and besides, it's not required to do an
> apt-get build-dep if you've already got all of the relevant packages
> installed.
Before I ran "apt-get build-dep" "apt-src build" didn't work, running
"apt-get build-dep" did _not_ install anything but after running it
"apt-src build" did work. I have no idea what kind of magic happened there,
but it worked so I'm thankful that Michael Koch suggested that I try that.
Happy, happy, joy, joy.
- Marcus Sundman
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
