Bug#1044860: csh: Fails to build source after successful build
Source: csh Version: 20110502-7 Severity: minor Tags: trixie sid ftbfs User: lu...@debian.org Usertags: ftbfs-sab-20230813 ftbfs-source-after-build User: debian...@lists.debian.org Usertags: qa-doublebuild Hi, This package fails to build a source package after a successful build (dpkg-buildpackage ; dpkg-buildpackage -S). This is probably a clear violation of Debian Policy section 4.9 (clean target), but this is filed as severity:minor for now, because a discussion on debian-devel showed that we might want to revisit the requirement of a working 'clean' target. More information about this class of issues, included common problems and solutions, is available at https://wiki.debian.org/qa.debian.org/FTBFS/SourceAfterBuild Relevant part of the build log: > cd /<> && runuser -u user42 -- dpkg-buildpackage --sanitize-env > -us -uc -rfakeroot -S > > > dpkg-buildpackage: info: source package csh > dpkg-buildpackage: info: source version 20110502-7 > dpkg-buildpackage: info: source distribution unstable > dpkg-buildpackage: info: source changed by Alastair McKinstry > > dpkg-source --before-build . > fakeroot debian/rules clean > dh clean --buildsystem=bmake >debian/rules override_dh_auto_clean > make[1]: Entering directory '/<>' > dh_auto_clean > bmake cleandir > bmake[2]: Entering directory `/<>' > rm -f a.out [Ee]rrs mklog core *.core csh alloc.o char.o const.o csh.o dir.o > dol.o error.o exec.o exp.o file.o func.o glob.o hist.o init.o lex.o misc.o > parse.o proc.o sem.o set.o str.o time.o alloc.ln char.ln const.ln csh.ln > dir.ln dol.ln error.ln exec.ln exp.ln file.ln func.ln glob.ln hist.ln init.ln > lex.ln misc.ln parse.ln proc.ln sem.ln set.ln str.ln time.ln error.h const.h > .depend alloc.d char.d const.d csh.d dir.d dol.d error.d exec.d exp.d file.d > func.d glob.d hist.d init.d lex.d misc.d parse.d proc.d sem.d set.d str.d > time.d y.tab.d *.tmp.d > rm -f .depend alloc.d char.d const.d csh.d dir.d dol.d error.d exec.d exp.d > file.d func.d glob.d hist.d init.d lex.d misc.d parse.d proc.d sem.d set.d > str.d time.d y.tab.d *.tmp.d > rm -f .depend /<>/tags > bmake[2]: Leaving directory `/<>' > dh_auto_clean -- -C USD.doc > bmake cleandir -C USD.doc > bmake[2]: Entering directory `/<>/USD.doc' > rm -f paper.* [eE]rrs mklog > bmake[2]: Leaving directory `/<>/USD.doc' > make[1]: Leaving directory '/<>' >dh_autoreconf_clean -O--buildsystem=bmake >dh_clean -O--buildsystem=bmake > dpkg-source -b . > dpkg-source: info: using source format '3.0 (quilt)' > dpkg-source: info: building csh using existing ./csh_20110502.orig.tar.gz > dpkg-source: info: using patch list from debian/patches/series > dpkg-source: info: local changes detected, the modified files are: > csh-20110502/csh.cat1 > dpkg-source: error: aborting due to unexpected upstream changes, see > /tmp/csh_20110502-7.diff.4c8rOj > dpkg-source: info: Hint: make sure the version in debian/changelog matches > the unpacked source tree > dpkg-source: info: you can integrate the local changes with dpkg-source > --commit > dpkg-buildpackage: error: dpkg-source -b . subprocess returned exit status 2 > > E: Command 'cd /<> && runuser -u user42 -- dpkg-buildpackage > --sanitize-env -us -uc -rfakeroot -S' failed to run. The full build log is available from: http://qa-logs.debian.net/2023/08/13/csh_20110502-7_unstable.log If you reassign this bug to another package, please mark it as 'affects'-ing this package. See https://www.debian.org/Bugs/server-control#affects If you fail to reproduce this, please provide a build log and diff it with mine so that we can identify if something relevant changed in the meantime. -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: install ruby1.9.1
On 21/01/11 at 10:06 -0800, Clint Byrum wrote: On Fri, 2011-01-21 at 10:24 -0600, Peng Yu wrote: Hi, I installed ruby1.9.1. But there is not a symbolic link from ruby to ruby1.9.1 (the executable). I'm wondering if ubuntu deliberately not to make a link from ruby to ruby1.9.1? Ubuntu is following Debian on this one. Its believed that the two languages (ruby 1.8 and ruby 1.9) are too different from one another to be managed by the alternatives system. When users are happy, take the credit even if all the work was done in Debian. When users complain, blame Debian and use the passive tense to lead the user into thinking that Debian is wrong (it is believed). If Ubuntu believes that Debian is wrong on this one, maybe you should make your own choices and live with the consequences, instead of hiding behind Debian? Your best bet is probably to use rvm. You realize that the installation instruction for RVM are to run: bash ( curl http://rvm.beginrescueend.com/releases/rvm-install-head ) ? (from http://rvm.beginrescueend.com/rvm/install/) - Lucas -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: install ruby1.9.1
On 21/01/11 at 15:21 -0800, Clint Byrum wrote: I happen to think that /usr/bin/ruby should be managed by alternatives, and I also think that Debian is the place to raise that point, as I think Ubuntu should continue to follow Debian, to do otherwise would be preposterous. I think that managing /usr/bin/ruby via alternatives is a goal worth considering. But I'm not sure that you realize the changes that need to happen before we can actually do that to avoid breaking every ruby reverse-dependency. Also, using alternatives to manage Ruby has drawbacks. You assume that the various Ruby implementations provide the same level of compatibility. That is absolutely not true, since there's not that much coordination going on between the various implementations. Using alternatives for Ruby means that many packages will break if you use the non-default Ruby version. Anyway, there's one simple thing missing for Debian to switch to alternatives for Ruby: contributions. Patches are welcomed, and I think that the recent discussions on debian-ruby@ describe quite well where work is needed. Test gem2deb, report problems, provide patches. Your best bet is probably to use rvm. You realize that the installation instruction for RVM are to run: bash ( curl http://rvm.beginrescueend.com/releases/rvm-install-head ) ? (from http://rvm.beginrescueend.com/rvm/install/) I do. Most ruby developers I discuss this issue with outside the Ubuntu and Debian world are quite comfortable with this solution, even with the problems it brings. I think I understand why its not packaged.. because we have an alternatives system for that in Debian and Ubuntu. I guess if you think rvm is really awful, then I can see how you might see my suggestion to use it as negative commentary. I'm curious what would be another solution to this issue? ln -sf /usr/bin/ruby1.9.1 /usr/local/bin/ruby? Works for all users, doesn't involve compiling Ruby by hand or hacking your .bashrc. - Lucas -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: [ubuntu-marketing] Making Canonical's/Ubuntu's contributions more visible
On 09/06/08 at 16:02 +0200, Przemysław Kulczycki wrote: Matthew Nuzum pisze: On Fri, May 23, 2008 at 4:36 AM, Przemysław Kulczycki [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Now let's get to the point. One of the often accusations against Ubuntu is that it only takes from other projects (Debian, Red Hat, Novell/Suse...) and doesn't give back anything. Ubuntu should make it more visible for others to see what does it contribute to upstream/floss community. Good. I hope something will be done about it ASAP. Reading all those comments about Ubuntu not contributing anything is really irritating. Let's start a wiki page at: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Website/Content/UbuntuContributions As the content on this page matures I'll sync it over to the main ubuntu website. I haven't commented earlier on this page, but there are several points that haven't been raised yet, and need to be raised. I don't think that people are complaining about Ubuntu not giving back. Ubuntu is a community, and cannot really give back or contribute itself. Members of the community can contribute or give back, but they are individuals. If I do something related to Ubuntu, even with my dusty MOTU hat on, I don't want it to be used by a marketing campaign. It's Lucas Nussbaum did [...], or Ubuntu developer Lucas Nussbaum did [...], not Ubuntu did [...]. But I don't think that it's about Ubuntu. The real issue is about Canonical, when you compare Canonical with Novell and Red Hat (the companies, not the distros). It's not about people doing stuff during their free time, it's about people being paid by Canonical to work on things that benefit more than just the Ubuntu distribution. In that page, please make a clear distinction between Canonical and Ubuntu. if volunteer Ubuntu developers have enough free time to also contribute to other projects, that's just cool. If Canonical employees are allowed to contribute to other projects during their work time, that's totally different, and a lot more cool. Specific examples of problems I see with the page: # The dpkg Breaks field was implemented by Ian Jackson for Ubuntu. == The dpkg Breaks field was implemented by Canonical employee Ian Jackson. Drop all the Ubuntu developed, clarify whether it was developed by a Canonical employee, or by community members (give their name if it's the case. But I'm not sure if it's worth mentioning if it was done by a community member). Canonical employs some Gnome developers (...) Who are they? List them! Are they allowed to work on GNOME directly during their work time? If not, it has about as much value as IBM employs some trainspotters. Also, the page is not very well organized. Maybe it could be reorganized like: 1) Work done by Canonical employees that is also used by other distributions/projects (if it's not used yet, don't mention it) 2) Canonical employees paid to work on upstream projects, at least part-time. 3) Other contributions: hosting of servers from other projects in the Canonical DC, sponsoring of events, organization of conferences like FOSSCAMP, etc. I think that the page is a good idea, as I'm sure that Canonical is doing more than many people realize. -- | Lucas Nussbaum | [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.lucas-nussbaum.net/ | | jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG: 1024D/023B3F4F | signature.asc Description: Digital signature -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Automatically sync new packages until feature freeze
On 21/01/08 at 13:53 +0100, Michael Bienia wrote: On 2008-01-20 23:19:58 +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: I'm not 100% sure it's a good idea, but what about doing the same for packages which aren't a new upstream release? If the Debian maintainer uploaded a new debian-specific version, it's likely to be a bug-fixing upload. It might be harder to automatize, but still... The new revision might introduce a versioned build-dependency on an other package with a new upstream version and we would either have to complete the transition or undo the change. Ok ; but, it isn't much harder to import new debian-specific versions provided that they are still installable and buildable in Ubuntu. -- | Lucas Nussbaum | [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.lucas-nussbaum.net/ | | jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG: 1024D/023B3F4F | -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Automatically sync new packages until feature freeze
On 20/01/08 at 18:43 +0100, Martin Pitt wrote: Hi, Wouter Stomp [2008-01-19 21:13 +0100]: Currently the automatic import of new packages from debian stops at the debianimportfreeze, which is very early in the release schedule. After that, sync requests have to be filed and acknowledged, which is a lot of unneccessary work I think and causes packages for which no requests are filed not to be in ubuntu, while they could have been. Would it be possible to automatically sync new packages in debian unstable until featurefreeze (or even later)? Technically this is not a problem at all. For discussing/changing the policy I'd recommend you to raise this with the Technical Board. /officialy speaking My own opinion: I tend to agree. It would steamline the job of requesters and archive admins, and completely new packages are mostly harmless. Since universe already has a magnitude more packages that MOTUs can handle, it doesn't make the maintainability situation significantly worse, eases source package renaming/lost build deps, etc. I'm not 100% sure it's a good idea, but what about doing the same for packages which aren't a new upstream release? If the Debian maintainer uploaded a new debian-specific version, it's likely to be a bug-fixing upload. It might be harder to automatize, but still... -- | Lucas Nussbaum | [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.lucas-nussbaum.net/ | | jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG: 1024D/023B3F4F | signature.asc Description: Digital signature -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Bug#460025: gcc-snapshot: please change the Maintainer field of this package
Package: gcc-snapshot Version: 20071202-1 Severity: important The Maintainer of this package is currently [EMAIL PROTECTED] This list is a discussion list for Ubuntu development. I don't think it's suitable as a maintainer for gcc-snapshot in Debian. Also, this list is moderated, and messages about gcc-snapshot are never accepted. Which means that a lot of mails is just going to a blackhole. Thank you, -- | Lucas Nussbaum | [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.lucas-nussbaum.net/ | | jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG: 1024D/023B3F4F | -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Some questions about Ubuntu
Hi, Following my blog post about communications between distros[1], I contacted openSUSE and Fedora developers and had a lot of interesting answers. I'd like to get answers to the same questions from Ubuntu developers. [1] http://www.lucas-nussbaum.net/blog/?p=250 I could probably write the answers myself, but I think that it's much better if I act as an outsider here, and other developers answer the questions (so I'm not speaking for Ubuntu). So here is the mail I sent to the other distros. --- Hi, I'm involved both in Debian and Ubuntu development, and I'm often frustrated by how little I know about the other distributions. After discussing this in a blog post[1], I got the impression that I wasn't alone in that case. So I decided to do something about that, and to go ask the other distributions' developers a few questions. If this works well (answers and interest from other distros), I might do that again, or turn this into something more formal (for example, a mailing list and/or a wiki would seem well suited for that). I started by contacting openSUSE and Fedora developers developers, and got very interesting answers. I'll publish the answers on my blog[2], and, if this proves to raise interest, move them to a wiki. [1] http://www.lucas-nussbaum.net/blog/?p=250 [2] http://www.lucas-nussbaum.net/blog/ Here is a first set of questions. In your answers, please avoid codenames (act as if the reader didn't know anything about your distribution). Please try to write your answer as a short paragraph, answering all the sub-questions from the questions at once. Q1. Packages How many pieces of software do you have in your distribution? Do you distinguish between source packages and binary packages? (if yes, give numbers for both). Are there subdivisions in the set of packages (by kind of support, by freeness)? Are all packages supported the same way, or are there different levels of support? (If different levels, how many packages are supported with each level?) Are some packages imported from another distribution, or are most of your packages done from scratch by your developers ? Q2. Your developers What's a developer in your distribution? How many developers do you have? How many of these developers were active in 2007? Does a company (which one?) employ a large number of developers? Do you have different classes of developers, or does everybody have the same access right to all your packages? How do you integrate new developers? How do you handle contributors who don't have access rights to the archive? (is there some kind of mentoring/sponsoring system?) Q3. Developers and packages ownership What's the relationship between developers and packages? Does each package have an assigned developer, or can everybody modify all packages without stepping on anyone's toes? Are packages mostly maintained by teams, or by developers working alone? Other questions: - Did I send that mail to the right mailing list? - Which question should I have asked? What should I ask next? - Do you think that this initiative is interesting? - Do you think that this should move to a seperate mailing list? Would you participate in such a mailing list? - Can you suggest a project that could host such a mailing list without annoying anyone? :) - Any other suggestions? Thank you for reading me so far -- and for answering my questions if you did. ;) If you want me to ping you when I'll publish the answers, just drop me a mail. -- | Lucas Nussbaum | [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.lucas-nussbaum.net/ | | jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG: 1024D/023B3F4F | -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
