FS#13676 - ABS building of vi package fails

Attached to Project: Arch Linux
Opened by Blazej (maruda) - Friday, 06 March 2009, 03:08 GMT
Last edited by Allan McRae (Allan) - Friday, 06 March 2009, 21:05 GMT
Task Type Bug Report
Category Packages: Core
Status Closed
Assigned To No-one
Architecture i686
Severity High
Priority Normal
Reported Version
Due in Version Undecided
Due Date Undecided
Percent Complete 100%
Votes 0
Private No

Details

Description:

building of vi-7.2.65-1 fails:

...
having patch file:7.2.129
having patch file:7.2.130
having patch file:7.2.131
having patch file:7.2.132
having patch file:7.2.001-100.gz
Number of patches does not match the patchlevel!
Edit the PKGBUILD accordingly!
==> ERROR: Build Failed.
Aborting...


changing _patchlevel in PKGBUILD from 65 to 132 results
in the same error. Changing it to 133 resulted in different
error:

...
having patch file:7.2.130
having patch file:7.2.131
having patch file:7.2.132
having patch file:7.2.001-100.gz
patching file src/pty.c
patching file src/version.c
patch unexpectedly ends in middle of line
patch: **** Only garbage was found in the patch input.
==> ERROR: Build Failed.
Aborting...


I guess this time the problem was caused by file 7.2.001-100.gz which should not be in the patch archive (?)

Cheers
This task depends upon

Closed by  Allan McRae (Allan)
Friday, 06 March 2009, 21:05 GMT
Reason for closing:  Duplicate
Additional comments about closing:   FS#12440 
Comment by xduugu (xduugu) - Friday, 06 March 2009, 07:56 GMT
a simple fix could be replacing

for _line in $(/bin/cat MD5SUMS); do

in fetch_patches.sh with something like

for _line in $(/bin/cat MD5SUMS | grep -v "\.gz$"); do

But probably it would be nice to use the big patch file instead of hundred small ones.
Comment by Greg (dolby) - Friday, 06 March 2009, 10:47 GMT
See  FS#13239  vi in core will be replaced by nvi soon.
Comment by xduugu (xduugu) - Friday, 06 March 2009, 13:55 GMT
Anyway, you've got the same problem with (g)vim.
Comment by Greg (dolby) - Friday, 06 March 2009, 14:00 GMT
See the bug report this is a duplicate of in the closure request:  FS#12440 
Comment by xduugu (xduugu) - Friday, 06 March 2009, 14:04 GMT
You're right. Thanks for the hint.

Loading...