package upgrade question (kipina 1.1 to kipina 2.2)

[Emilio Pozuelo Monfort]

Efrain Valles wrote:
> Thanks guys for the prompt response, I have solved all the build
> dependency issues. Now I am faced with what may be a missing file issue.
> I just want to check If I am right.
>         
>         make[3]: Leaving directory `/tmp/buildd/kipina-0.2.2'
>         make[2]: Leaving directory `/tmp/buildd/kipina-0.2.2'
>         make[1]: Leaving directory `/tmp/buildd/kipina-0.2.2'
>         dh_testdir
>         dh_testroot
>         dh_install --sourcedir=/tmp/buildd/kipina-0.2.2/debian/tmp
>         cp: cannot stat
>         `/tmp/buildd/kipina-0.2.2/debian/tmp//usr/share/kipina/xsl/i18n.xml': No such file or directory
>         dh_install: command returned error code 256
>         make: *** [binary-arch] Error 1
>         dpkg-buildpackage: failure: fakeroot debian/rules binary gave
>         error exit status 
> 
> any insights will be greatly appreciated

It looks to me like there's a file listen in debian/install (or
debian/foo.install) which isn't in the new upstream release. dh_install is
trying to copy it and it can't.

Or there's a cp command in your debian/rules which tries to copy that file, and
it can't as it doesn't exist.

Workaround: remove that line from debian/*install or debian/rules. (Note that I
don't know whether that file is important or not. Perhaps it got renamed.)

Emilio

> 
> 
> 
> El lun, 04-02-2008 a las 23:19 +0100, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort escribió:
>> Efrain Valles wrote:
>>> Dear all:
>>>
>>>
>>> I am working on an update based on this bug,
>>> https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/kipina/+bug/95842
>>>
>>> The package kipina is orphan in debian and therefore hasn't been updated
>>> in a while. the bug in launchpad suggests an upgrade because version 1.0
>>> is broken and it is not supported. I am updating from 1.1 to 2.2.
>>>  
>>> I have followed the upgrade package recipe carefully, I was able to
>>> build the source package and I am getting the following error during the
>>> building of the binary package.
>>>
>>>
>>>         checking for GTK... yes
>>>         checking for GCONF... configure: error: Package requirements
>>>         (gconf-2.0) were not met:
>>>         
>>>         No package 'gconf-2.0' found
>>>         
>>>         Consider adjusting the PKG_CONFIG_PATH environment variable if
>>>         you
>>>         installed software in a non-standard prefix.
>>>         
>>>         Alternatively, you may set the environment variables
>>>         GCONF_CFLAGS
>>>         and GCONF_LIBS to avoid the need to call pkg-config.
>>>         See the pkg-config man page for more details.
>>>         
>>>
>>> One suggestion was to add libgconf2-dev but I have read that apps should
>>> not depend on dev libraries. It was only a wild guess
>> It's needed for building, so it's fine to add a -dev package to Build-Depends.
>> The package itself won't depend on the -dev package, but on the normal package
>> (which will be added to Depends by $(shlibs:Depends).
>>
>>> any suggestions will be apreciated
>>>
>>>
>>


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-motu-mentors/attachments/20080205/4a0938d9/attachment.pgp