notepadqq / notepadqq-packaging

Packaging scripts and files for Notepadqq
MIT License
21 stars 12 forks source link

configure not called in Debian build process #31

Closed suntong closed 9 years ago

suntong commented 9 years ago

I don't think the debian\rules is defined properly as I didn't see that the ./configure is being invoked in build log (https://launchpadlibrarian.net/191397250/buildlog_ubuntu-utopic-amd64.notepadqq_0.41.0-0~utopic1_UPLOADING.txt.gz), which is a required step according to https://github.com/notepadqq/notepadqq: You can build Notepadqq from command line:

notepadqq$ ./configure --prefix /usr. 

Please verify. PS. I don't know the fix because I was looking for an example of debian\rules to invoke ./configure before make.

danieleds commented 9 years ago

Very strange, thank you. I'll check what's happening asap.

danieleds commented 9 years ago

Looks to me like it's being called correctly. I've built the same exact package available from the official PPA, launching dpkg-buildpackage -b -us -uc.

This is an excerpt of the output:

   dh_clean -O--parallel
 debian/rules build
dh build --parallel
   dh_testdir -O--parallel
   dh_auto_configure -O--parallel
WARNING: Unknown option --build=x86_64-linux-gnu
WARNING: Unknown option --includedir=${prefix}/include
WARNING: Unknown option --mandir=${prefix}/share/man
WARNING: Unknown option --infodir=${prefix}/share/info
WARNING: Unknown option --sysconfdir=/etc
WARNING: Unknown option --localstatedir=/var
WARNING: Unknown option --libdir=${prefix}/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu
WARNING: Unknown option --libexecdir=${prefix}/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu
WARNING: Unknown option --disable-maintainer-mode
WARNING: Unknown option --disable-dependency-tracking
   dh_auto_build -O--parallel

Those warnings are produced by the "configure" script. They appear in your log too ;) It's "dh_auto_configure" that implicitly calls ./configure.

I'll close this issue. Feel free to reopen if I missed something.

suntong commented 9 years ago

On Sun, Dec 14, 2014 at 1:39 PM, Daniel Di Sarli notifications@github.com wrote:

Looks to me like it's being called correctly.

Ops, sorry for my ignorance. Thanks for your investigation.