On Thu, Feb 17, 2005 at 04:26:12PM +0200, Marcus Sundman wrote: > On Thursday 17 February 2005 21:32, Michael Koch wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 17, 2005 at 03:09:41PM +0200, Marcus Sundman wrote: > > > On Thursday 17 February 2005 13:18, Bartosz Fenski aka fEnIo wrote: > > > > On Thu, Feb 17, 2005 at 06:19:59AM +0200, Marcus Sundman wrote: > > > > > I do the following (irrelevant output omitted): > > > > > ----8<-------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > /usr/src/tmp$ apt-src install foo > > > > > /usr/src/tmp$ cd foo-version > > > > > /usr/src/tmp/foo-version$ apt-src build foo > > > > > E: Not installed > > > > > /usr/src/tmp/foo-version$ > > > > > ---->8-------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > > > > Any idea what might be wrong? > > > > > > > > You don't have to enter to foo-version directory. > > > > Anyway it should work even with that... both ways works for me. > > > > > > I tried that, too, but it still just says "E: Not installed". > > > > > > What's "E" and what's not installed? (This must be one of the least > > > helpful error messages I've ever seen.) > > > > E means "error". > > Ah, ok.. (If the author tried to be confusing he could have made it say > "Blue: No roof" or something. Although on a second thought that probably > would have been too obvious and made ppl check out the source, and this way > he got it actually more confusing by being less confusing. Clever.)
The addition of one compound-word ("Build-dependencies") would have solved
all of your ills. The BTS is ---> over there.
> (It would be nice if the man page of apt-src would state that "build"
> requires doing an "apt-get build-dep".)
Again, BTS ---> over there, and besides, it's not required to do an apt-get
build-dep if you've already got all of the relevant packages installed.
- Matt
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
