Bug#1074706: [Pkg-pascal-devel] Bug#1074706: Bug#1074706: msgfmt change breaks build

2024-07-12 Thread Peter Blackman
On 12/07/2024 11:17, Peter Blackman wrote: Raised bug report upstream, https://gitlab.com/freepascal.org/fpc/source/-/issues/40853 and updated the patch header. Oh poo!! Seems the mail system ate my patch with A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: msgfmt.patch Type: text/x-patch

Bug#1074706: [Pkg-pascal-devel] Bug#1074706: Bug#1074706: msgfmt change breaks build

2024-07-12 Thread Peter Blackman
Raised bug report upstream, https://gitlab.com/freepascal.org/fpc/source/-/issues/40853 and updated the patch header. Subject: Fix msgfmt related build fail Author: Peter Blackman Bug-Debian: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1074706 Forwarded: https://gitlab.com/freepascal.org

Bug#1074706: [Pkg-pascal-devel] Bug#1074706: msgfmt change breaks build

2024-07-11 Thread Peter Blackman
On 11/07/2024 12:38, Peter B wrote: Hi Davo, please raise this as a formal bug upstream with FPC. Or would you rather that I do this? Regards, Peter

Bug#1074706: [Pkg-pascal-devel] Bug#1074706: fpc: FTBFS: msgfmt change breaks build

2024-07-11 Thread Peter Blackman
Control: tags -1 patch Adding this patch to the end of the series, fixes the build of the po files. Regards, PeterSubject: Fix msgfmt related build fail Author: Peter Blackman Bug-Debian: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1074706 Forwarded: no

Bug#1074706: [Pkg-pascal-devel] Bug#1074706: fpc: FTBFS: make[1]: *** [Makefile:9: de] Error 1

2024-07-11 Thread Peter Blackman
On 09/07/2024 17:08, Peter B wrote: Until recently, fpc built OK, and msgfmt did not appear in the build logs. Sorry, I got that bit wrong. I was looking at the 'all' build not the 'amd64' msgfmt used to work, but no longer. It seems a header such as msgid "" msgstr "" "Content-Type: tex

Bug#1069554: [Pkg-pascal-devel] Bug#1069554: this is no bug in the package, bug in the script doing the rebuild?

2024-04-24 Thread Peter Blackman
On 24/04/2024 20:38, Rene Engelhard wrote: My point isĀ  that you don't need the alternative. Hi Rene, but it would surely be needed if someone wanted to build winff from source on armel? Even though that case is perhaps unlikely. I can't see how the alternative is doing any harm. Regards