Note: This is a public test instance of Red Hat Bugzilla. The data contained within is a snapshot of the live data so any changes you make will not be reflected in the production Bugzilla. Email is disabled so feel free to test any aspect of the site that you want. File any problems you find or give feedback at bugzilla.redhat.com.
Bug 511560 - FTBFS qtparted-0.4.5-19.fc11
Summary: FTBFS qtparted-0.4.5-19.fc11
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED RAWHIDE
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: qtparted
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
high
high
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Steven Pritchard
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL: http://linux.dell.com/files/fedora/Fi...
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks: F12FTBFS
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2009-07-15 03:22 UTC by FTBFS
Modified: 2009-09-12 00:49 UTC (History)
3 users (show)

Fixed In Version: qtparted-0.4.5-22.fc12
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2009-09-11 23:24:32 UTC
Type: ---
Embargoed:

Attachments (Terms of Use)
root.log (666.16 KB, text/plain)
2009-07-15 03:22 UTC, FTBFS 		no flags Details
build.log (18.21 KB, text/plain)
2009-07-15 03:22 UTC, FTBFS 		no flags Details
mock.log (1.01 KB, text/plain)
2009-07-15 03:22 UTC, FTBFS 		no flags Details
root.log (960.02 KB, text/plain)
2009-07-15 03:22 UTC, FTBFS 		no flags Details
build.log (18.52 KB, text/plain)
2009-07-15 03:22 UTC, FTBFS 		no flags Details
mock.log (1.02 KB, text/plain)
2009-07-15 03:22 UTC, FTBFS 		no flags Details
View All

Description FTBFS 2009-07-15 03:22:21 UTC 
qtparted-0.4.5-19.fc11.src.rpm Failed To Build From Source against the rawhide tree.  See http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/FTBFS for more information.
Comment 1 FTBFS 2009-07-15 03:22:24 UTC 
Setting to ASSIGNED per Fedora Bug Triage workflow.  https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/BugStatusWorkFlow
Comment 2 FTBFS 2009-07-15 03:22:27 UTC 
Created attachment 352465 [details]
root.log

root.log for i386
Comment 3 FTBFS 2009-07-15 03:22:29 UTC 
Created attachment 352466 [details]
build.log

build.log for i386
Comment 4 FTBFS 2009-07-15 03:22:30 UTC 
Created attachment 352467 [details]
mock.log

mock.log for i386
Comment 5 FTBFS 2009-07-15 03:22:32 UTC 
Created attachment 352468 [details]
root.log

root.log for x86_64
Comment 6 FTBFS 2009-07-15 03:22:34 UTC 
Created attachment 352469 [details]
build.log

build.log for x86_64
Comment 7 FTBFS 2009-07-15 03:22:35 UTC 
Created attachment 352470 [details]
mock.log

mock.log for x86_64
Comment 8 Alex Lancaster 2009-08-26 07:27:08 UTC 
There was one obvious problem that I fixed: adding an explicit BuildRequires for libuuid-devel.  But that doesn't get it to build, there is some deeper problem with the code, get error messages like:

qp_libparted.cpp: In member function 'bool QP_LibParted::_partition_warn_busy(PedPartition*)':
qp_libparted.cpp:1751: error: 'ped_free' was not declared in this scope

log here:

http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/getfile?taskID=1634281&name=build.log

full build here:

http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=129265
Comment 9 Milos Jakubicek 2009-09-11 23:24:32 UTC 
Alex, I just fixed this using a patch coming from Debian. Please review that the solution doesn't have any unexpected side-effects, if you can. Thanks

P.S.: Do not hesitate to ask for help on fedora-devel-list or #fedora-devel in case you're in trouble with FTBFS bugs.
Comment 10 Alex Lancaster 2009-09-12 00:20:50 UTC 
(In reply to comment #9)
> Alex, I just fixed this using a patch coming from Debian. Please review that
> the solution doesn't have any unexpected side-effects, if you can. Thanks

Thanks.  I don't have a rawhide box to test on right now, but I'll try it out if and when I do.

> P.S.: Do not hesitate to ask for help on fedora-devel-list or #fedora-devel in
> case you're in trouble with FTBFS bugs.  

Sure, in general I do just that especially with packages I own or co-maintain, but since I'm not the maintainer of this package I felt this should really be the maintainers responsibility.  I was just in my "trying to get the broken deps list shorter" provenpackager mode. ;)
Comment 11 Milos Jakubicek 2009-09-12 00:49:20 UTC 
(In reply to comment #10)

> Sure, in general I do just that especially with packages I own or co-maintain,
> but since I'm not the maintainer of this package I felt this should really be
> the maintainers responsibility.  I was just in my "trying to get the broken
> deps list shorter" provenpackager mode. ;)  

Alex, I'm sorry then (didn't realize you're not the maintainer)!
...btw, this was my "trying to get the FTBFS list shorter" provenpackager mode:), in case you'd like to join this mode, look here: http://mjakubicek.fedorapeople.org/need-rebuild.html

Regards,
Milos
Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.