|
Home > Archive > Debian Developers > January 2006 > hppa dependency problems on build of pdns
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
hppa dependency problems on build of pdns
|
|
| Matthijs Mohlmann 2006-01-04, 8:04 am |
| -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
I don't know where to send this else, so forgive me if this is the wrong
mailinglist.
See:
http://buildd.debian.org/fetch.php?...file=log&as=raw
[..]
Setting up tetex-base (3.0-11) ...
Removing unchanged obsolete conffiles ... done
/var/lib/dpkg/info/tetex-base.postinst: line 678: update-language:
command not found
dpkg: error processing tetex-base (--configure):
subprocess post-installation script returned error exit status 127
Setting up libexpat1 (1.95.8-3) ...
[..]
matthijs@monster % dpkg -S update-language
tex-common: /usr/sbin/update-language
tex-common: /usr/share/man/man8/update-language.8.gz
matthijs@monster % apt-cache show tetex-base | grep -e ^Version -e ^Depends
Version: 3.0-11
Depends: ucf (>= 1.02), tex-common (>= 0.12)
As you can see, tetex-base depends on tex-common (>= 0.12). But the hppa
build daemon doesn't install tex-common.
So can somebody tell me what's going on here ?
Regards,
Matthijs Mohlmann
(Team member of Debian PowerDNS Maintainers)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFDu7mu2n1ROIkXqbARAkVkAJ9LcTypOqgW
ft3e2+R/ns0nV69tYgCfQ3m4
JUB7hM4F9cXwq+mSs9LK00s=
=quYE
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| Frank Küster 2006-01-09, 7:52 am |
| Matthijs Mohlmann <matthijs@cacholong.nl> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I don't know where to send this else, so forgive me if this is the wrong
> mailinglist.
>
> See:
> http://buildd.debian.org/fetch.php?...-2&arch=3Dhppa=
&stamp=3D1135294848&file=3Dlog&as=3Draw
>
> [..]
[...]
> As you can see, tetex-base depends on tex-common (>=3D 0.12). But the hppa
> build daemon doesn't install tex-common.
>
> So can somebody tell me what's going on here ?
The same happened to the planner package, and has been reported as
#344538. It seems that hppa buildd is broken, don't know yet whether
the buildd admin (Lamont) or anybody of the debian-admin (responsible
for the hardware) is at it.
Regards, Frank
--=20
Frank K=FCster
Inst. f. Biochemie der Univ. Z=FCrich
Debian Developer
| |
| Steve Langasek 2006-01-09, 11:02 pm |
| On Mon, Jan 09, 2006 at 02:37:53PM +0100, Frank Küster wrote:
> Matthijs Mohlmann <matthijs@cacholong.nl> wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
[vbcol=seagreen]
> [...]
[vbcol=seagreen]
[vbcol=seagreen]
> The same happened to the planner package, and has been reported as
> #344538. It seems that hppa buildd is broken, don't know yet whether
> the buildd admin (Lamont) or anybody of the debian-admin (responsible
> for the hardware) is at it.
Hasn't the problem on the hppa buildd been fixed for a while? The pdns
package (both versions 2.9.19-2 and 2.9.19-3) has built fine on that arch
now.
If the buildd wasn't installing a package that was part of the dependencies,
then it surely thought for some reason it was already installed. If this
wasn't actually the case, it points to a buildd problem or a bug in some
maintainer script or other; either way, it seems to be corrected now.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
vorlon@debian.org http://www.debian.org/
| |
| Matthijs Mohlmann 2006-01-13, 10:44 pm |
| Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 09, 2006 at 02:37:53PM +0100, Frank Küster wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Hasn't the problem on the hppa buildd been fixed for a while? The pdns
> package (both versions 2.9.19-2 and 2.9.19-3) has built fine on that arch
> now.
>
I haven't fixed anything on this issue, so I'm still wondering why it's
now working in a sudden.
> If the buildd wasn't installing a package that was part of the dependencies,
> then it surely thought for some reason it was already installed. If this
> wasn't actually the case, it points to a buildd problem or a bug in some
> maintainer script or other; either way, it seems to be corrected now.
>
The maintainer scripts are not changed as of 2.9.18-3, then it's
actually a buildd problem. If the package was already installed then it
shouldn't fail with a "command not found".
Regards,
Matthijs Mohlmann
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
|
|
|
|
|