Keith Packard <kei...@keithp.com> (30/12/2009):
> I haven't received any mail about RC bugs today, and can't find any
> through the bugs.debian.org web interface.
I meant #559136 and #560252, opened for some weeks.

> >  2. optionally fix them;
> 
> I'm trying, but it looks like dh_installdefoma is just plain busted
> though. It does things like:
> 
>       test -x `which defoma-app` && defoma-app clean fontconfig
> 
> which is clearly broken when defoma-app is not installed (as test -x
> with no argument returns success)

Indeed (and for those following at home: #563121).

Still, losing Riku's band-aid wasn't nice. Anyway, now that the root
issue's being addressed, the band-aid shouldn't be necessary for too
much time.

> > I've just uploaded a package re-introducing Riku's changes to prevent
> > buildds to be fucked again after a couple of builds (which I repeat
> > needs manual intervention, which is not nice).
> 
> Thanks; I've got a defoma patch that I'm testing here; can you suggest a
> method to test the resulting fontconfig patches built with that change?

What I did to check how my fontconfig upload was going was:
 - grab my nearest chroot, possibly minimal-like;
 - make sure defoma wasn't installed;
 - copy all fontconfig binaries there;
 - dpkg -i /tmp/*.deb;
 - apt-get -f install

That's how I noticed the set +e bits, commands that weren't found, and
made sure it wasn't making the postinst script fail. I'm probably
going to do so with the (new) defoma patch I've just written a mail
about in the other bug. I'll keep you posted.

Mraw,
KiBi.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply via email to