Bug#544554: manpages of libmotif should be fixed
Package: openmotif Severity: minor The current openmotif packages include several lintian overrides to suppress as less as about 500 warnings about manpage errors. Currently I'm in progress of preparing a new upstream release, which has additional 1300 warnings about manpage errors (but less lintian overrides, because I fixed one more obvious mistake in every manpage). This problem should be raised upstream and be fixed by them. For now I'll adding lintian overrides, too, so this is a bug remembering me or whoever else wants to do the next QA upload to fix this issue. Regards, Patrick -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-qa-packages-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#528121: O: xml-resume-library -- A set of tools for writing a resume in XML
Hi Daniel, I've seen that you were interested to adopt the xml-resume-library package, but lost interest. But as far as I can tell from your comments you already worked on the package. Well. Now there is an open rc bug on the package because of non-free material included and I wonder if your previous work may have fixed this bug. It would be cool, if you could check that and eventually provide a fixed package if the answer is yes. Best Regards, Patrick -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-qa-packages-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#561324: aiccu: uses non-essential tools in the config script
Package: aiccu Version: 20070115-11 Severity: serious The config script of the package uses the aiccu tool itself to create a list of tunnel providers and even tries to connect the tunnel providers during config stage. This is a policy violation, because policy 3.9.1 states: "The config script might be run before the preinst script, and before the package is unpacked or any of its dependencies or pre-dependencies are satisfied. Therefore it must work using only the tools present in essential packages." As the package might get unpacked _after_ running the script, it simply cannot depend on itself to be around at that point. -Patrick -- System Information: Debian Release: squeeze/sid APT prefers unstable APT policy: (500, 'unstable'), (500, 'testing') Architecture: i386 (x86_64) Kernel: Linux 2.6.31-1-amd64 (SMP w/2 CPU cores) Locale: LANG=de_DE.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=de_DE.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8) Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash Versions of packages aiccu depends on: ii cdebconf [debconf-2.0] 0.145Debian Configuration Management Sy ii debconf [debconf-2.0] 1.5.28 Debian configuration management sy ii iproute 20090324-1 networking and traffic control too ii iputils-ping3:20071127-2 Tools to test the reachability of ii iputils-tracepath 3:20071127-2 Tools to trace the network path to ii libc6 2.10.2-2 GNU C Library: Shared libraries ii libgnutls26 2.8.5-2 the GNU TLS library - runtime libr ii lsb-base3.2-23 Linux Standard Base 3.2 init scrip ii ucf 3.0025 Update Configuration File: preserv Versions of packages aiccu recommends: ii ntp 1:4.2.4p7+dfsg-4 Network Time Protocol daemon and u ii ntpdate 1:4.2.4p7+dfsg-4 client for setting system time fro aiccu suggests no packages. -- no debconf information -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-qa-packages-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#457961: dillo fails to build twice in a row
Package: dillo Severity: serious Hi, Nicolas reported that dillo fails to build twice in a row. As this is considered an RC issue because beeing able to build twice in a row is a release goal for lenny [1] I forward this to the BTS, so that others can track this. Best Regards Patrick [1] http://release.debian.org/lenny-goals.txt - Forwarded message from Nicolas Valcarcel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - From: Nicolas Valcarcel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2007 00:05:05 -0500 Subject: problem unpatching dillo I'm getting this error every time i debuild dillo for second time, and as i see on the changelog you develop the patch, can you take a look on it please? $ debuild -rfakeroot fakeroot debian/rules clean dpatch deapply-all reverting patch 02_dont-ignore-hash-files from ./ ... ok. reverting patch 01_i18n from ./ ... failed. make: *** [unpatch] Error 1 debuild: fatal error at line 1247: fakeroot debian/rules clean failed -- aka nxvl Peruvian LoCo Team Key fingerprint = 8104 21CE A580 7EB7 5184 8DFF 6A3A D5DA 24DC 6AF5 gpg --keyserver keyserver.ubuntu.com --recv-keys 24DC6AF5 - End forwarded message - -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#457961: Fwd: Re: Dillo failing to unpatch
- Forwarded message from "Nelson A. de Oliveira" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2007 14:15:12 -0200 From: "Nelson A. de Oliveira" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Nicolas Valcarcel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: Patrick Schoenfeld <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Dillo failing to unpatch Hi! On Dec 27, 2007 1:22 PM, Nicolas Valcarcel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I have already done that, but there is 102 .rej files Strange... I've got only the two .rej files that I sent before. Could you put a log of the rejected files available somewhere? Best regards, Nelson - End forwarded message - -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#457961: Fwd: Re: Dillo failing to unpatch
- Forwarded message from Nicolas Valcarcel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - From: Nicolas Valcarcel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Nelson A. de Oliveira" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: Patrick Schoenfeld <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2007 10:22:13 -0500 Subject: Re: Dillo failing to unpatch I have already done that, but there is 102 .rej files On Thu, 2007-12-27 at 03:15 -0200, Nelson A. de Oliveira wrote: > Hi Nicolas! > > About your message on debian-qa [1], probably you are talking about [2], > right? > > Well, indeed it's failing to unpatch on the second run and the probable > guiltys are: > > (...) > patching file config.guess > Hunk #1 FAILED at 1. > Hunk #2 FAILED at 53. > Hunk #3 FAILED at 106. > Hunk #4 FAILED at 203. > Hunk #5 FAILED at 227. > Hunk #6 FAILED at 245. > Hunk #7 FAILED at 319. > Hunk #8 FAILED at 342. > Hunk #9 FAILED at 755. > Hunk #10 FAILED at 778. > Hunk #11 FAILED at 789. > Hunk #12 FAILED at 804. > Hunk #13 FAILED at 827. > Hunk #14 FAILED at 917. > Hunk #15 succeeded at 1004 with fuzz 2 (offset 27 lines). > Hunk #16 FAILED at 1109. > Hunk #17 FAILED at 1209. > Hunk #18 FAILED at 1227. > Hunk #19 FAILED at 1277. > 18 out of 19 hunks FAILED -- saving rejects to file config.guess.rej > (...) > patching file config.sub > Hunk #1 FAILED at 1. > Hunk #2 FAILED at 70. > Hunk #3 FAILED at 145. > Hunk #4 FAILED at 237. > Hunk #5 FAILED at 264. > Hunk #6 FAILED at 300. > Hunk #7 FAILED at 310. > Hunk #8 FAILED at 326. > Hunk #9 FAILED at 343. > Hunk #10 FAILED at 446. > Hunk #11 succeeded at 490 with fuzz 2 (offset 33 lines). > Hunk #12 succeeded at 526 with fuzz 2 (offset 37 lines). > Hunk #13 FAILED at 708. > Hunk #14 FAILED at 788. > Hunk #15 FAILED at 834. > Hunk #16 succeeded at 932 with fuzz 2 (offset 59 lines). > Hunk #17 succeeded at 949 with fuzz 2 (offset 65 lines). > Hunk #18 FAILED at 1026. > Hunk #19 succeeded at 1098 with fuzz 2 (offset 65 lines). > Hunk #20 succeeded at 1135 with fuzz 2 (offset 68 lines). > Hunk #21 succeeded at 1273 with fuzz 2 (offset 71 lines). > Hunk #22 succeeded at 1379 with fuzz 2 (offset 74 lines). > Hunk #23 succeeded at 1422 with fuzz 2 (offset 83 lines). > Hunk #24 succeeded at 1480 with fuzz 2 (offset 92 lines). > 14 out of 24 hunks FAILED -- saving rejects to file config.sub.rej > (...) > > Just in case you want to see exactly what is wrong, you can build the > package (dpkg-buildpackage, for example) and then try to revert the > patch (cat debian/patches/01_i18n | patch -R -p1). > It will save the .rej files (you can see that the changes aren't big). > > The responsible for the patch (as noted inside debian/patches/01_i18n) > can be contacted via [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Homepage of the patch is http://teki.jpn.ph/pc/software/index-e.shtml > > But I don't think that there is something wrong with his patch. > > I am CCing Patrick, who did the QA work of the last upload of dillo. > > It's also a problem for the Debian package, since it needs to build > twice without failing. Not a big problem, but a problem :-) > > [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-qa/2007/12/msg00188.html > [2] https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/dillo/+bug/178046 > > Best regards, > Nelson -- aka nxvl key fingerprint: E140 4CC7 5E3C B6B4 DCA7 F6FD D22E 2FB4 A9BA 6877 gpg --keyserver keyserver.ubuntu.com --recv-keys A9BA6877 Yo uso Software Libre y tu? - End forwarded message - -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#457961: Fwd: Dillo failing to unpatch
- Forwarded message from "Nelson A. de Oliveira" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2007 03:15:30 -0200 From: "Nelson A. de Oliveira" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Nicolas Valcárcel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: Patrick Schoenfeld <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Dillo failing to unpatch Hi Nicolas! About your message on debian-qa [1], probably you are talking about [2], right? Well, indeed it's failing to unpatch on the second run and the probable guiltys are: (...) patching file config.guess Hunk #1 FAILED at 1. Hunk #2 FAILED at 53. Hunk #3 FAILED at 106. Hunk #4 FAILED at 203. Hunk #5 FAILED at 227. Hunk #6 FAILED at 245. Hunk #7 FAILED at 319. Hunk #8 FAILED at 342. Hunk #9 FAILED at 755. Hunk #10 FAILED at 778. Hunk #11 FAILED at 789. Hunk #12 FAILED at 804. Hunk #13 FAILED at 827. Hunk #14 FAILED at 917. Hunk #15 succeeded at 1004 with fuzz 2 (offset 27 lines). Hunk #16 FAILED at 1109. Hunk #17 FAILED at 1209. Hunk #18 FAILED at 1227. Hunk #19 FAILED at 1277. 18 out of 19 hunks FAILED -- saving rejects to file config.guess.rej (...) patching file config.sub Hunk #1 FAILED at 1. Hunk #2 FAILED at 70. Hunk #3 FAILED at 145. Hunk #4 FAILED at 237. Hunk #5 FAILED at 264. Hunk #6 FAILED at 300. Hunk #7 FAILED at 310. Hunk #8 FAILED at 326. Hunk #9 FAILED at 343. Hunk #10 FAILED at 446. Hunk #11 succeeded at 490 with fuzz 2 (offset 33 lines). Hunk #12 succeeded at 526 with fuzz 2 (offset 37 lines). Hunk #13 FAILED at 708. Hunk #14 FAILED at 788. Hunk #15 FAILED at 834. Hunk #16 succeeded at 932 with fuzz 2 (offset 59 lines). Hunk #17 succeeded at 949 with fuzz 2 (offset 65 lines). Hunk #18 FAILED at 1026. Hunk #19 succeeded at 1098 with fuzz 2 (offset 65 lines). Hunk #20 succeeded at 1135 with fuzz 2 (offset 68 lines). Hunk #21 succeeded at 1273 with fuzz 2 (offset 71 lines). Hunk #22 succeeded at 1379 with fuzz 2 (offset 74 lines). Hunk #23 succeeded at 1422 with fuzz 2 (offset 83 lines). Hunk #24 succeeded at 1480 with fuzz 2 (offset 92 lines). 14 out of 24 hunks FAILED -- saving rejects to file config.sub.rej (...) Just in case you want to see exactly what is wrong, you can build the package (dpkg-buildpackage, for example) and then try to revert the patch (cat debian/patches/01_i18n | patch -R -p1). It will save the .rej files (you can see that the changes aren't big). The responsible for the patch (as noted inside debian/patches/01_i18n) can be contacted via [EMAIL PROTECTED] Homepage of the patch is http://teki.jpn.ph/pc/software/index-e.shtml But I don't think that there is something wrong with his patch. I am CCing Patrick, who did the QA work of the last upload of dillo. It's also a problem for the Debian package, since it needs to build twice without failing. Not a big problem, but a problem :-) [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-qa/2007/12/msg00188.html [2] https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/dillo/+bug/178046 Best regards, Nelson - End forwarded message -
Bug#457961: Dillo failing to unpatch
Hi,
On Thu, Dec 27, 2007 at 02:15:12PM -0200, Nelson A. de Oliveira wrote:
> Strange...
> I've got only the two .rej files that I sent before.
I can confirm these two .rej files. I don't have 102 .rej files.
BTW. I have forwarded this (and every mail yet sent) to the BTS.
So please include [EMAIL PROTECTED] in all further emails.
Bart Martens has added a patch for this on the BTS. I'm not sure if his
fix is appropriate, but he also indicates that he fixes
config.{sub,guess}.
Regards,
Patrick
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
