Your message dated Sun, 26 Oct 2025 15:43:15 +0000
with message-id <[email protected]>
and subject line Re: Bug#1118699: nftables: missing build-dependency
has caused the Debian Bug report #1118699,
regarding nftables: missing build-dependency
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact [email protected]
immediately.)
--
1118699: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1118699
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact [email protected] with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Source: nftables
Version: 1.1.5-2
Severity: serious
Tags: ftbfs
Justification: fails to build from source (but built successfully in the past)
Hey.
It seems nftables requires asciidoc-base for building.
Without it, the ./configure of debian/rules binary gives a:
checking for a2x... no
and later one gets's a failure with:
no -L --doctype manpage --format manpage -D "./doc" doc/nft.txt
/bin/bash: line 1: no: command not found
make[3]: *** [Makefile:1990: doc/nft.8] Error 127
make[3]: Leaving directory '/home/calestyo/test/nftables-1.1.5'
make[2]: *** [Makefile:807: all] Error 2
make[2]: Leaving directory '/home/calestyo/test/nftables-1.1.5'
dh_auto_build: error: make -j1 returned exit code 2
make[1]: *** [debian/rules:39: override_dh_auto_build] Error 2
make[1]: Leaving directory '/home/calestyo/test/nftables-1.1.5'
make: *** [debian/rules:28: binary] Error 2
so it actually tries to use "no" as binary name, which IMO is also kinda
strange. Shouldn't the ./configure already fail earlier?
Thanks,
Chris
-- System Information:
Debian Release: forky/sid
APT prefers unstable-debug
APT policy: (500, 'unstable-debug'), (500, 'unstable')
Architecture: amd64 (x86_64)
Kernel: Linux 6.16.12+deb14+1-amd64 (SMP w/16 CPU threads; PREEMPT)
Locale: LANG=en_DE.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_DE.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8), LANGUAGE not set
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /usr/bin/dash
Init: systemd (via /run/systemd/system)
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On 2025-10-24, at 22:31:08 +0200, Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote:
On Fri, 2025-10-24 at 17:01 +0100, Jeremy Sowden wrote:
> AsciiDoc is only required to generate the man-pages. However, since
> the upstream tar-ball already includes these, there is no need to
> generate them when building the Debian package, which is why there
> is no build-dep on asciidoc-base.
I think that's the culprit I've missed.
> In the excerpt you have included above, however, make has decided to
> attempt to regenerate the man-pages, and it has failed. Can you
> provide more context?
I was applying some patches[0] to see whether they're properly
rendered,... guess the build system noticed that their sources were
newer than the already build manpages.
Without any changes, it builds without asciidoctor, as you say.
From my side we can close this.
Sorry for the noise.
No problem. Closing.
PS: @Jeremy,... I've submitted another series[1] upstream which deals
with improving their nftables.service.in ... and there will be a
2nd one with ideas for making more use of systemd's sandboxing
options. I would want to see the same changes in Debian's
nftables.service, but I thought I wait with upstream opinions
before I file a PR in salsa. But you might have already look at
the first series and tell me what you think about them.
[0]
https://lore.kernel.org/netfilter-devel/[email protected]/T/#t
[1]
https://lore.kernel.org/netfilter-devel/[email protected]/T/#t
Yes, I noticed. I'm keeping an eye on the thread.
J.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
--- End Message ---
