severity 388067 serious
stop
Max Kellermann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 2006/09/18 16:32, Frank K?ster [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Do you still have a full build log available?
I've attached a fresh build log (i386).
Thank you. It shows that dpkg-buildpackage first calls the build target
On 2006/09/19 09:07, Frank K?ster [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Strangely, I cannot reproduce this here (it happened exactly
once...). Maybe there's again some timeskew problem, but I doubt
it, since all these commands should take a while. Are you able to
reproduce this? If yes, please apply the
tags 388067 pending
thanks
Max Kellermann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Please see build1.log and build2.log.
Thank you. I found the problem: The patch target deleted one of its
prerequisites, which therefore was always remade and newer than
patch-stamp. The only thing I do not understand is
Package: tetex-base
Version: 3.0-21
Tags: ftbfs
On both i386 and amd64:
Removing doc/context/manual/cont-eni.pdf.
touch stampdir/build-stamp
debian/rules binary
uudecode -o debian/missingfiles.tar.gz
debian/patches/missingfiles.tar.gz.uu
quilt push -a
File series fully applied, ends at patch
Max Kellermann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Package: tetex-base
Version: 3.0-21
Tags: ftbfs
On both i386 and amd64:
Removing doc/context/manual/cont-eni.pdf.
touch stampdir/build-stamp
debian/rules binary
uudecode -o debian/missingfiles.tar.gz
debian/patches/missingfiles.tar.gz.uu
quilt
(sorry for the half-finished mail I just sent)
Max Kellermann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Package: tetex-base
Version: 3.0-21
Tags: ftbfs
On both i386 and amd64:
Removing doc/context/manual/cont-eni.pdf.
touch stampdir/build-stamp
debian/rules binary
uudecode -o
On 2006/09/18 16:32, Frank K?ster [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Do you still have a full build log available?
I've attached a fresh build log (i386).
Max
Reading Package Lists...
Building Dependency Tree...
Need to get 92.3MB of source archives.
Get:1 http://debian.intern.cm-ag sid/main tetex-base
7 matches
Mail list logo
