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.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature