[Pkg-electronics-devel] ngspice in new

[Carsten Schoenert]

Hello Gudjon,

Am 16.09.18 um 18:09 schrieb Gudjon I. Gudjonsson:
...
> This is what I did and I get the following error:
> 
> +checking for package pgf [pgf]... yes
> +checking for package biblatex [biblatex]... no
> +checking for package jurabib [jurabib]... no
> +checking for package biblatex [biblatex]... no
> +checking for package natbib [natbib]... yes
> +Inspection done.
> +Read the file doc/LaTeXConfig.lyx for more information.
> LyX: Done!
> Warning: This document contained both literal and "ligature" dashes.
> Line breaks may have changed. See UserGuide chapter 3.9.1 for details.
> Warning: This document contained both literal and "ligature" dashes.
> Line breaks may have changed. See UserGuide chapter 3.9.1 for details.
> dh_install
> dh_install: Cannot find (any matches for) "doc/*build_ngspice*.png"
> (tried in ., debian/tmp)
> 
> dh_install: ngspice-doc missing files: doc/*build_ngspice*.png
> dh_install: missing files, aborting
> make[1]: *** [debian/rules:125: override_dh_install-indep] Error 25
> make[1]: Leaving directory '/home/gudjon/nb/ngspice/ngspice'
> make: *** [debian/rules:57: binary] Error 2
> dpkg-buildpackage: error: fakeroot debian/rules binary subprocess
> returned exit status 2
> debuild: fatal error at line 1152:
> dpkg-buildpackage -rfakeroot -us -uc -ui -i -I failed
> 
> I very much prefer dpkg-buildpackage working repeatedly but I have
> to admit that I went too far removing the png files :)

this looks a bit like some paths are somewhere missing here, and this
obviously is a issue. If you run your build with export DH_VERBOSE=1 in
debian/rules you will where the build is exactly stumbling here.

Do you build differently than gbp with pbuilder is doing, for me this
was working for arch-depended and arch-in-depended calls so until now I
haven't seen any issues. But I agree that probably not all is in a
straight forward and reproducible state.

What exactly you are doing, if I know that I will try to reproduce this.
I can see indirectly that you don't run 'gbp buildpackage ...' but what
you do in detail I don't know.

> Can't we agree on letting the clean target return the package into a
> state where it can be rebuilt?

For sure, but I still don't see what the problem is here?

-- 
Regards
Carsten Schoenert