On 19 August 2018 at 11:22, David Bremner wrote: | Dirk Eddelbuettel <[email protected]> writes: | > | I don't know how this works normally, but I found that adding "(require | > | 'ess-custom)" to the top of ess-bugs-d.el fixed it. | > | > I ignored that for now; I seem to recall that some of these things changed upstream. | | I don't think that error is ignorable, it's causing the postinst to
Indeed. I was not thinking straight. Thanks for catching that! | fail. I cloned your repo from upstream, applied the following patch, and | the resulting package installs for me. | | diff --git a/lisp/ess-bugs-d.el b/lisp/ess-bugs-d.el | index a3bba7d..9c0230d 100644 | --- a/lisp/ess-bugs-d.el | +++ b/lisp/ess-bugs-d.el | @@ -23,6 +23,7 @@ | | ;;; Code: | | +(require 'ess-custom) | (require 'ess-bugs-l) | (require 'ess-utils) | (require 'ess-inf) Rocking. I owe a hot or cold beverage of your choice. Will upload this as -4 as it'll go into NEW for the new elpa-ess and in the meantime look into dh-elpa. The two-liner debian/rules should work, right? Dirk -- http://dirk.eddelbuettel.com | @eddelbuettel | [email protected]
