----- 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]
