Hi,
On Thu, 07 Jun 2012, P. J. McDermott wrote:
Generalization
==
[...]
Rather than modifying a lot of dpkg code to handle field patterns or
the like, I propose a simple dynamic definition of Build-Depends-
StageN and Build-Depends-Indep-StageN hash elements in %FIELDS:
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
tag 676107 pending
Bug #676107 [dpkg] debian-faq: FTBFS: nsgmls:OSFD0:6:0:E: reference to entity
DEBIANDOC for which no system identifier could be generated
Bug #675613 [dpkg] debiandoc-sgml: Does not register itself in /etc/sgml/catalog
Bug
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
tag 676118 pending
Bug #676118 [dpkg] sgml-base-doc: FTBFS: nsgmls:sgml_layout.sgml:1:26:E:
reference to entity DEBIANDOC for which no system identifier could be
generated
Bug #675613 [dpkg] debiandoc-sgml: Does not register itself in
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
tag 675613 pending
Bug #675613 [dpkg] debiandoc-sgml: Does not register itself in /etc/sgml/catalog
Bug #676061 [dpkg] doc-base: FTBFS: nsgmls:_build/doc-base.sgml:5:0:E:
reference to entity DEBIANDOC for which no system identifier could be
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
tag 676061 pending
Bug #676061 [dpkg] doc-base: FTBFS: nsgmls:_build/doc-base.sgml:5:0:E:
reference to entity DEBIANDOC for which no system identifier could be
generated
Bug #675613 [dpkg] debiandoc-sgml: Does not register itself in
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
tag 676062 pending
Bug #676062 [dpkg] debiandoc-sgml-doc-pt-br: FTBFS:
nsgmls:debiandoc-sgml.pt_BR.sgml:13:0:E: reference to entity DEBIANDOC for
which no system identifier could be generated
Bug #675613 [dpkg] debiandoc-sgml: Does not register
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
tag 676122 pending
Bug #676122 [dpkg] debian-history: FTBFS: nsgmls:OSFD0:1:26:E: reference to
entity DEBIANDOC for which no system identifier could be generated
Bug #675613 [dpkg] debiandoc-sgml: Does not register itself in /etc/sgml/catalog
Bug
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
tag 676496 pending
Bug #676496 [dpkg] dpkg: premature removal of Multi-arch: leads to all dpkg
commands failing
Added tag(s) pending.
thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
--
676496:
On Tue, 2012-06-05 at 20:24:47 +0200, Guillem Jover wrote:
On Tue, 2012-06-05 at 15:01:55 +0200, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
If you say what you want it to look like, I can also prepare some
patches doing the way you want.
Also is there any reason to already get the first two patches with
Your message dated Fri, 08 Jun 2012 08:48:10 +
with message-id e1scura-00028a...@franck.debian.org
and subject line Bug#391818: fixed in dpkg 1.16.4
has caused the Debian Bug report #391818,
regarding fails to install new conffile with --force-confnew
to be marked as done.
This means that you
Your message dated Fri, 08 Jun 2012 08:48:10 +
with message-id e1scura-00028g...@franck.debian.org
and subject line Bug#580038: fixed in dpkg 1.16.4
has caused the Debian Bug report #580038,
regarding Integer overflow in epoch handling
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the
Your message dated Fri, 08 Jun 2012 08:48:10 +
with message-id e1scura-00028q...@franck.debian.org
and subject line Bug#629480: fixed in dpkg 1.16.4
has caused the Debian Bug report #629480,
regarding dpkg: Add support for Build-Depends-Arch and Build-Conflicts-Arch
to be marked as done.
This
Your message dated Fri, 08 Jun 2012 08:48:10 +
with message-id e1scura-00028u...@franck.debian.org
and subject line Bug#670897: fixed in dpkg 1.16.4
has caused the Debian Bug report #670897,
regarding dpkg: document a locking interface for high-level package managers
to be marked as done.
Your message dated Fri, 08 Jun 2012 08:48:10 +
with message-id e1scura-00028a...@franck.debian.org
and subject line Bug#671198: fixed in dpkg 1.16.4
has caused the Debian Bug report #671198,
regarding libdpkg-perl: missing dependency on gcc
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that
Your message dated Fri, 08 Jun 2012 08:48:10 +
with message-id e1scura-00028f...@franck.debian.org
and subject line Bug#672408: fixed in dpkg 1.16.4
has caused the Debian Bug report #672408,
regarding add arm64 support to dpkg
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem
Your message dated Fri, 08 Jun 2012 08:48:10 +
with message-id e1scura-00028k...@franck.debian.org
and subject line Bug#673158: fixed in dpkg 1.16.4
has caused the Debian Bug report #673158,
regarding /usr/bin/dpkg-buildflags: Error in French manpage translation
to be marked as done.
This
Your message dated Fri, 08 Jun 2012 08:48:10 +
with message-id e1scura-00028p...@franck.debian.org
and subject line Bug#673305: fixed in dpkg 1.16.4
has caused the Debian Bug report #673305,
regarding dpkg: -l option doesn't work properly
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that
Your message dated Fri, 08 Jun 2012 08:48:10 +
with message-id e1scura-00028x...@franck.debian.org
and subject line Bug#673518: fixed in dpkg 1.16.4
has caused the Debian Bug report #673518,
regarding dpkg-divert: Warns on missing files list file before unpack
to be marked as done.
This means
Your message dated Fri, 08 Jun 2012 08:48:10 +
with message-id e1scura-00029c...@franck.debian.org
and subject line Bug#675613: fixed in dpkg 1.16.4
has caused the Debian Bug report #675613,
regarding debiandoc-sgml: Does not register itself in /etc/sgml/catalog
to be marked as done.
This
Your message dated Fri, 08 Jun 2012 08:48:10 +
with message-id e1scura-00029c...@franck.debian.org
and subject line Bug#675613: fixed in dpkg 1.16.4
has caused the Debian Bug report #675613,
regarding doc-base: FTBFS: nsgmls:_build/doc-base.sgml:5:0:E: reference to
entity DEBIANDOC for which
Your message dated Fri, 08 Jun 2012 08:48:10 +
with message-id e1scura-00029c...@franck.debian.org
and subject line Bug#675613: fixed in dpkg 1.16.4
has caused the Debian Bug report #675613,
regarding debiandoc-sgml-doc-pt-br: FTBFS:
nsgmls:debiandoc-sgml.pt_BR.sgml:13:0:E: reference to
Your message dated Fri, 08 Jun 2012 08:48:10 +
with message-id e1scura-00029c...@franck.debian.org
and subject line Bug#675613: fixed in dpkg 1.16.4
has caused the Debian Bug report #675613,
regarding sgml-base-doc: FTBFS: nsgmls:sgml_layout.sgml:1:26:E: reference to
entity DEBIANDOC for
Your message dated Fri, 08 Jun 2012 08:48:10 +
with message-id e1scura-00029c...@franck.debian.org
and subject line Bug#675613: fixed in dpkg 1.16.4
has caused the Debian Bug report #675613,
regarding debian-history: FTBFS: nsgmls:OSFD0:1:26:E: reference to entity
DEBIANDOC for which no
Your message dated Fri, 08 Jun 2012 08:48:10 +
with message-id e1scura-00029h...@franck.debian.org
and subject line Bug#675918: fixed in dpkg 1.16.4
has caused the Debian Bug report #675918,
regarding dpkg: [S-S-D]: write_pidfile() should not follow symlinks
to be marked as done.
This means
Your message dated Fri, 08 Jun 2012 08:48:10 +
with message-id e1scura-00029r...@franck.debian.org
and subject line Bug#676061: fixed in dpkg 1.16.4
has caused the Debian Bug report #676061,
regarding doc-base: FTBFS: nsgmls:_build/doc-base.sgml:5:0:E: reference to
entity DEBIANDOC for which
Your message dated Fri, 08 Jun 2012 08:48:10 +
with message-id e1scura-00029r...@franck.debian.org
and subject line Bug#676061: fixed in dpkg 1.16.4
has caused the Debian Bug report #676061,
regarding debiandoc-sgml-doc-pt-br: FTBFS:
nsgmls:debiandoc-sgml.pt_BR.sgml:13:0:E: reference to
Your message dated Fri, 08 Jun 2012 08:48:10 +
with message-id e1scura-00029r...@franck.debian.org
and subject line Bug#676061: fixed in dpkg 1.16.4
has caused the Debian Bug report #676061,
regarding debiandoc-sgml: Does not register itself in /etc/sgml/catalog
to be marked as done.
This
Your message dated Fri, 08 Jun 2012 08:48:10 +
with message-id e1scura-00029r...@franck.debian.org
and subject line Bug#676061: fixed in dpkg 1.16.4
has caused the Debian Bug report #676061,
regarding debian-faq: FTBFS: nsgmls:OSFD0:6:0:E: reference to entity
DEBIANDOC for which no system
Your message dated Fri, 08 Jun 2012 08:48:10 +
with message-id e1scura-00029r...@franck.debian.org
and subject line Bug#676061: fixed in dpkg 1.16.4
has caused the Debian Bug report #676061,
regarding sgml-base-doc: FTBFS: nsgmls:sgml_layout.sgml:1:26:E: reference to
entity DEBIANDOC for
Your message dated Fri, 08 Jun 2012 08:48:10 +
with message-id e1scura-00029w...@franck.debian.org
and subject line Bug#676062: fixed in dpkg 1.16.4
has caused the Debian Bug report #676062,
regarding debiandoc-sgml-doc-pt-br: FTBFS:
nsgmls:debiandoc-sgml.pt_BR.sgml:13:0:E: reference to
Your message dated Fri, 08 Jun 2012 08:48:10 +
with message-id e1scura-00029w...@franck.debian.org
and subject line Bug#676062: fixed in dpkg 1.16.4
has caused the Debian Bug report #676062,
regarding debiandoc-sgml: Does not register itself in /etc/sgml/catalog
to be marked as done.
This
Your message dated Fri, 08 Jun 2012 08:48:11 +
with message-id e1scurb-00029g...@franck.debian.org
and subject line Bug#676118: fixed in dpkg 1.16.4
has caused the Debian Bug report #676118,
regarding debian-history: FTBFS: nsgmls:OSFD0:1:26:E: reference to entity
DEBIANDOC for which no
Your message dated Fri, 08 Jun 2012 08:48:11 +
with message-id e1scurb-00029g...@franck.debian.org
and subject line Bug#676118: fixed in dpkg 1.16.4
has caused the Debian Bug report #676118,
regarding debian-faq: FTBFS: nsgmls:OSFD0:6:0:E: reference to entity
DEBIANDOC for which no system
Your message dated Fri, 08 Jun 2012 08:48:11 +
with message-id e1scurb-00029l...@franck.debian.org
and subject line Bug#676122: fixed in dpkg 1.16.4
has caused the Debian Bug report #676122,
regarding doc-base: FTBFS: nsgmls:_build/doc-base.sgml:5:0:E: reference to
entity DEBIANDOC for which
Your message dated Fri, 08 Jun 2012 08:48:11 +
with message-id e1scurb-00029l...@franck.debian.org
and subject line Bug#676122: fixed in dpkg 1.16.4
has caused the Debian Bug report #676122,
regarding debiandoc-sgml-doc-pt-br: FTBFS:
nsgmls:debiandoc-sgml.pt_BR.sgml:13:0:E: reference to
Your message dated Fri, 08 Jun 2012 08:48:11 +
with message-id e1scurb-00029l...@franck.debian.org
and subject line Bug#676122: fixed in dpkg 1.16.4
has caused the Debian Bug report #676122,
regarding debian-faq: FTBFS: nsgmls:OSFD0:6:0:E: reference to entity
DEBIANDOC for which no system
Your message dated Fri, 08 Jun 2012 08:48:11 +
with message-id e1scurb-00029l...@franck.debian.org
and subject line Bug#676122: fixed in dpkg 1.16.4
has caused the Debian Bug report #676122,
regarding sgml-base-doc: FTBFS: nsgmls:sgml_layout.sgml:1:26:E: reference to
entity DEBIANDOC for
Your message dated Fri, 08 Jun 2012 08:48:11 +
with message-id e1scurb-00029v...@franck.debian.org
and subject line Bug#676496: fixed in dpkg 1.16.4
has caused the Debian Bug report #676496,
regarding dpkg: premature removal of Multi-arch: leads to all dpkg commands
failing
to be marked as
Your message dated Fri, 08 Jun 2012 08:48:11 +
with message-id e1scurb-00029q...@franck.debian.org
and subject line Bug#676262: fixed in dpkg 1.16.4
has caused the Debian Bug report #676262,
regarding dpkg: warning with perl 5.16:
Dpkg::Control::Fields::field_capitalize() called too early to
P. J. McDermott wrote:
As mentioned previously by Wookey and Jonathan, staged binary packages
should be marked as such in their control files so they aren't
accidentally uploaded to the archive as complete packages.
To this end, I propose the addition of a new Build-Stage: N (or
similar)
Package: dpkg
Version: 1.16.4
The trigger-related changes in 1.16.4 have a rather nasty side effect.
Running update-menus in maintainer scripts (as done by dh_installmenu,
for instance) no longer processes menu's triggers:
,
| # dpkg --unpack iceape_2.7.5-1_i386.deb
| (Reading database ...
Hi!
On Fri, 2012-06-08 at 21:43:23 +0200, Sven Joachim wrote:
Package: dpkg
Version: 1.16.4
The trigger-related changes in 1.16.4 have a rather nasty side effect.
Running update-menus in maintainer scripts (as done by dh_installmenu,
for instance) no longer processes menu's triggers:
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
tag 676684 pending
Bug #676684 [dpkg] dpkg: trigger related changes break update-menus
Added tag(s) pending.
thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
--
676684:
Your message dated Fri, 08 Jun 2012 22:32:13 +
with message-id e1sd7j3-0007el...@franck.debian.org
and subject line Bug#676684: fixed in dpkg 1.16.4.1
has caused the Debian Bug report #676684,
regarding dpkg: trigger related changes break update-menus
to be marked as done.
This means that you
On Fri, 2012-06-08 at 18:32:25 +0200, Zlatko Calusic wrote:
Package: dselect
Version: 1.16.4
Severity: normal
My apologies up front if this turns out to be a package problem.
I have installed libtinyxml2-0.0.0 libtinyxml2-dev and now I see
them classified as Obsolete/local Extra
On 09.06.2012 01:00, Guillem Jover wrote:
On Fri, 2012-06-08 at 18:32:25 +0200, Zlatko Calusic wrote:
Package: dselect
Version: 1.16.4
Severity: normal
My apologies up front if this turns out to be a package problem.
I have installed libtinyxml2-0.0.0 libtinyxml2-dev and now I see
them
On Sat, 2012-06-09 at 01:08:01 +0200, Zlatko Calusic wrote:
On 09.06.2012 01:00, Guillem Jover wrote:
On Fri, 2012-06-08 at 18:32:25 +0200, Zlatko Calusic wrote:
apt-cache policy libtinyxml2-0.0.0
libtinyxml2-0.0.0:
Installed: 0~git20120518.1.a2ae54e-1
Candidate:
On 09.06.2012 01:25, Guillem Jover wrote:
On Sat, 2012-06-09 at 01:08:01 +0200, Zlatko Calusic wrote:
On 09.06.2012 01:00, Guillem Jover wrote:
On Fri, 2012-06-08 at 18:32:25 +0200, Zlatko Calusic wrote:
apt-cache policy libtinyxml2-0.0.0
libtinyxml2-0.0.0:
Installed:
Jonathan Nieder jrnie...@gmail.com wrote:
Do I understand correctly that in the stage-N build, the installed
versions of all build-time dependencies (and their dependencies, et
cetera) must have build-stage = (N-1)? What about the standard
build? Does it happen repeatedly, incrementing the
On 2012-06-08 02:00, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
This is not OK. It means that those fields would be basically unknown
when you're not doing a staged build. Yet they are always present
in debian/control (and probably the .dsc) and thus they need to exist
in that hash to avoid warnings, and to be
Wookey wrote:
an uploadable
build should always be done against complete build-deps - anything
built against 'staged' packages must be considered 'tainted'.
Sounds good. If I understand correctly:
* dpkg-checkbuilddeps: in a stage-N
51 matches
Mail list logo
