----- Forwarded message from "Nelson A. de Oliveira" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -----
Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2007 03:15:30 -0200 From: "Nelson A. de Oliveira" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Nicolas Valcárcel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: Patrick Schoenfeld <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Dillo failing to unpatch Hi Nicolas! About your message on debian-qa [1], probably you are talking about [2], right? Well, indeed it's failing to unpatch on the second run and the probable guiltys are: (...) patching file config.guess Hunk #1 FAILED at 1. Hunk #2 FAILED at 53. Hunk #3 FAILED at 106. Hunk #4 FAILED at 203. Hunk #5 FAILED at 227. Hunk #6 FAILED at 245. Hunk #7 FAILED at 319. Hunk #8 FAILED at 342. Hunk #9 FAILED at 755. Hunk #10 FAILED at 778. Hunk #11 FAILED at 789. Hunk #12 FAILED at 804. Hunk #13 FAILED at 827. Hunk #14 FAILED at 917. Hunk #15 succeeded at 1004 with fuzz 2 (offset 27 lines). Hunk #16 FAILED at 1109. Hunk #17 FAILED at 1209. Hunk #18 FAILED at 1227. Hunk #19 FAILED at 1277. 18 out of 19 hunks FAILED -- saving rejects to file config.guess.rej (...) patching file config.sub Hunk #1 FAILED at 1. Hunk #2 FAILED at 70. Hunk #3 FAILED at 145. Hunk #4 FAILED at 237. Hunk #5 FAILED at 264. Hunk #6 FAILED at 300. Hunk #7 FAILED at 310. Hunk #8 FAILED at 326. Hunk #9 FAILED at 343. Hunk #10 FAILED at 446. Hunk #11 succeeded at 490 with fuzz 2 (offset 33 lines). Hunk #12 succeeded at 526 with fuzz 2 (offset 37 lines). Hunk #13 FAILED at 708. Hunk #14 FAILED at 788. Hunk #15 FAILED at 834. Hunk #16 succeeded at 932 with fuzz 2 (offset 59 lines). Hunk #17 succeeded at 949 with fuzz 2 (offset 65 lines). Hunk #18 FAILED at 1026. Hunk #19 succeeded at 1098 with fuzz 2 (offset 65 lines). Hunk #20 succeeded at 1135 with fuzz 2 (offset 68 lines). Hunk #21 succeeded at 1273 with fuzz 2 (offset 71 lines). Hunk #22 succeeded at 1379 with fuzz 2 (offset 74 lines). Hunk #23 succeeded at 1422 with fuzz 2 (offset 83 lines). Hunk #24 succeeded at 1480 with fuzz 2 (offset 92 lines). 14 out of 24 hunks FAILED -- saving rejects to file config.sub.rej (...) Just in case you want to see exactly what is wrong, you can build the package (dpkg-buildpackage, for example) and then try to revert the patch (cat debian/patches/01_i18n | patch -R -p1). It will save the .rej files (you can see that the changes aren't big). The responsible for the patch (as noted inside debian/patches/01_i18n) can be contacted via [EMAIL PROTECTED] Homepage of the patch is http://teki.jpn.ph/pc/software/index-e.shtml But I don't think that there is something wrong with his patch. I am CCing Patrick, who did the QA work of the last upload of dillo. It's also a problem for the Debian package, since it needs to build twice without failing. Not a big problem, but a problem :-) [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-qa/2007/12/msg00188.html [2] https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/dillo/+bug/178046 Best regards, Nelson ----- End forwarded message -----
