Control: tag -1 + moreinfo Hi Sven,
thanks for the bug report. It seems that screen is quite delicate with regards to additional build dependencies. Your reports are not the first ones of this kind and the screen source package already sports a Build-Conflicts header. Sven Joachim wrote: > On my system which has quite a few -dev packages installed, utmp.c does > not compile: > > ,---- > | gcc -c -I. -I. -Wdate-time -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 > -DETCSCREENRC='"/etc/screenrc"' > -DSCREENENCODINGS='"/usr/share/screen/utf8encodings"' -DHAVE_CONFIG_H > -DGIT_REV=\""`git describe --always 2>/dev/null`"\" \ > | -g -O2 -fstack-protector-strong -Wformat -Werror=format-security -Wall > -Wextra -Wno-unused-parameter -Wno-missing-field-initializers utmp.c > | utmp.c:99:0: warning: "pututline" redefined > | # define pututline xpututline > | ^ > | In file included from screen.h:30:0, > | from utmp.c:34: > | os.h:262:0: note: this is the location of the previous definition > | # define pututline pututxline > | ^ > | utmp.c: In function 'makedead': > | utmp.c:602:13: error: 'struct __exit_status' has no member named > 'e_termination' > | u->ut_exit.e_termination = 0; > | ^ > | utmp.c:603:13: error: 'struct __exit_status' has no member named 'e_exit' > | u->ut_exit.e_exit = 0; > | ^ > | utmp.c: In function 'xpututline': > | utmp.c:885:3: warning: implicit declaration of function 'pututline' > [-Wimplicit-function-declaration] > | pututline(u); > | ^ > | Makefile:82: recipe for target 'utmp.o' failed > | make[2]: *** [utmp.o] Error 1 > `---- > > I'm attaching a complete build log from git master. This is not > reproducible in a minimal chroot, even if libutempter-dev is installed > (see #819781). https://codesearch.debian.net/results/pututline%20path%3A.*%5C.h%24/page_0 suggests a bunch of source packages which are possible causes for this. I have dietlibc installed myself, too, so that's no reason. The same counts for libreadline6-dev and gdb. Does any of the source packages ring a bell for you? If not (or if you don't want to go the path mentioned above), can you try with dpkg-depcheck from the devscripts package to see which non-build-dependencies is used in this failing build? Regards, Axel -- ,''`. | Axel Beckert <[email protected]>, http://people.debian.org/~abe/ : :' : | Debian Developer, ftp.ch.debian.org Admin `. `' | 4096R: 2517 B724 C5F6 CA99 5329 6E61 2FF9 CD59 6126 16B5 `- | 1024D: F067 EA27 26B9 C3FC 1486 202E C09E 1D89 9593 0EDE
