Bug#954676: pasdoc: FTBFS: dh_installman: error: Could not determine section for ./pasdoc.1
Dear Michalis, On 30-03-2020 14:11, Michalis Kamburelis wrote: > The PasDoc manpage in Debian is done using > > help2man --output=pasdoc.1 --name="documentation tool for Pascal source code" > \ > --no-info bin/pasdoc I just uploaded a new version of pasdoc to the Debian archive, but in the process I filed two bugs, one against debhelper (bug #958343) and one against help2man (bug #958345). It turns out that a recent help2man started to create invalid .TH lines in the produced man file. It seems to be very much related to what pasdoc output on the first line. Apparently that's a bit unconventional. No need to adapt, as I work around it now, but you *may* want to be in line with other programs. Paul signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Bug#954676: [Pkg-pascal-devel] Bug#954676: pasdoc: FTBFS: dh_installman: error: Could not determine section for ./pasdoc.1
Paul Gevers napisał(a):
>
> Hi Michalis,
>
> On 30-03-2020 14:11, Michalis Kamburelis wrote:
> > Do we know what the message "Could not determine section for" means,
> > or how to investigate it? I mean, this manpage should go to section 1
> > ("User Commands"), which is indicated both by the filename "pasdoc.1"
> > and by text inside "pasdoc(1)". Why does the dh_installman not catch
> > it?
>
> I don't know but if nobody does, I'll figure it out. I consider this a
> stupid regression of help2man and/or dh_installman, but there's probably
> a reason.
>
> > If necessary, I can easily create a proper manpage upstream (that
> > would be available in our repository, without the need for help2man),
> > I just need to know what is exactly required / necessary to avoid :)
>
> Let's not go that route unless you as upstream really want to support a
> proper man page. I mean, apparently you never really consider the
> program to lack a dedicated man page. Obviously if you think otherwise
> because of this issue, feel free to draft (and maintain) a man page
> upstream, but otherwise I am totally happy to ship a man page created
> with help2man. I assume you do maintain the --help option.
>
Thank you for looking into this.
Indeed, as upstream it is easier for me to *not* maintain a dedicated
webpage, and instead rely on "pasdoc --help" and help2man. The manpage
generated this way looks satisfactory I think (at least for us, humans
-- it seems only some programs complain :) ). So if we can fix this
without adding a dedicated man page, that's great.
Regards,
Michalis
Bug#954676: pasdoc: FTBFS: dh_installman: error: Could not determine section for ./pasdoc.1
Hi Michalis,
On 30-03-2020 14:11, Michalis Kamburelis wrote:
> Do we know what the message "Could not determine section for" means,
> or how to investigate it? I mean, this manpage should go to section 1
> ("User Commands"), which is indicated both by the filename "pasdoc.1"
> and by text inside "pasdoc(1)". Why does the dh_installman not catch
> it?
I don't know but if nobody does, I'll figure it out. I consider this a
stupid regression of help2man and/or dh_installman, but there's probably
a reason.
> If necessary, I can easily create a proper manpage upstream (that
> would be available in our repository, without the need for help2man),
> I just need to know what is exactly required / necessary to avoid :)
Let's not go that route unless you as upstream really want to support a
proper man page. I mean, apparently you never really consider the
program to lack a dedicated man page. Obviously if you think otherwise
because of this issue, feel free to draft (and maintain) a man page
upstream, but otherwise I am totally happy to ship a man page created
with help2man. I assume you do maintain the --help option.
Paul
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Bug#954676: [Pkg-pascal-devel] Bug#954676: pasdoc: FTBFS: dh_installman: error: Could not determine section for ./pasdoc.1
The PasDoc manpage in Debian is done using
help2man --output=pasdoc.1 --name="documentation tool for Pascal source code" \
--no-info bin/pasdoc
Do we know what the message "Could not determine section for" means,
or how to investigate it? I mean, this manpage should go to section 1
("User Commands"), which is indicated both by the filename "pasdoc.1"
and by text inside "pasdoc(1)". Why does the dh_installman not catch
it?
If necessary, I can easily create a proper manpage upstream (that
would be available in our repository, without the need for help2man),
I just need to know what is exactly required / necessary to avoid :)
Regards,
Michalis
niedz., 22 mar 2020 o 15:03 Lucas Nussbaum napisał(a):
>
> Source: pasdoc
> Version: 0.15.0-1
> Severity: serious
> Justification: FTBFS on amd64
> Tags: bullseye sid ftbfs
> Usertags: ftbfs-20200322 ftbfs-bullseye
>
> Hi,
>
> During a rebuild of all packages in sid, your package failed to build
> on amd64.
>
> Relevant part (hopefully):
> > fakeroot debian/rules binary
> > dh binary
> >dh_testroot
> >dh_prep
> >dh_auto_install
> >dh_install
> >dh_installdocs
> >dh_installchangelogs
> >dh_installman
> > dh_installman: error: Could not determine section for ./pasdoc.1
> > dh_installman: error: Aborting due to earlier error
> > make: *** [debian/rules:13: binary] Error 25
>
> The full build log is available from:
>http://qa-logs.debian.net/2020/03/22/pasdoc_0.15.0-1_unstable.log
>
> A list of current common problems and possible solutions is available at
> http://wiki.debian.org/qa.debian.org/FTBFS . You're welcome to contribute!
>
> About the archive rebuild: The rebuild was done on EC2 VM instances from
> Amazon Web Services, using a clean, minimal and up-to-date chroot. Every
> failed build was retried once to eliminate random failures.
>
> ___
> Pkg-pascal-devel mailing list
> pkg-pascal-de...@alioth-lists.debian.net
> https://alioth-lists.debian.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-pascal-devel
Bug#954676: pasdoc: FTBFS: dh_installman: error: Could not determine section for ./pasdoc.1
Source: pasdoc Version: 0.15.0-1 Severity: serious Justification: FTBFS on amd64 Tags: bullseye sid ftbfs Usertags: ftbfs-20200322 ftbfs-bullseye Hi, During a rebuild of all packages in sid, your package failed to build on amd64. Relevant part (hopefully): > fakeroot debian/rules binary > dh binary >dh_testroot >dh_prep >dh_auto_install >dh_install >dh_installdocs >dh_installchangelogs >dh_installman > dh_installman: error: Could not determine section for ./pasdoc.1 > dh_installman: error: Aborting due to earlier error > make: *** [debian/rules:13: binary] Error 25 The full build log is available from: http://qa-logs.debian.net/2020/03/22/pasdoc_0.15.0-1_unstable.log A list of current common problems and possible solutions is available at http://wiki.debian.org/qa.debian.org/FTBFS . You're welcome to contribute! About the archive rebuild: The rebuild was done on EC2 VM instances from Amazon Web Services, using a clean, minimal and up-to-date chroot. Every failed build was retried once to eliminate random failures.
