[FTBFS] bastet-0.41-6 failed to build on natty machine

Hello tarun again

First of all a very good try at fixing FTBFS mate, Here are a few quick observations

1. Please set the maintainer to Ubuntu Developers (In the future you can use update-maintainer script from ubuntu-dev-tools package to set the same)

2. I am a bit skeptical about what this patch hunk does exactly

diff -u bastet-0.41/debian/patches/01_Makefile.patch bastet-0.41/debian/patches/01_Makefile.patch
--- bastet-0.41/debian/patches/01_Makefile.patch
+++ bastet-0.41/debian/patches/01_Makefile.patch
@@ -5,8 +5,10 @@
 #
 # Desc: Adding destdir and fixing some perms.

---- a/Makefile
-+++ b/Makefile
+Index: bastet-0.41/Makefile
+===================================================================
+--- bastet-0.41.orig/Makefile 2004-10-19 19:54:58.000000000 +0200
++++ bastet-0.41/Makefile 2008-01-27 15:55:35.000000000 +0100
 @@ -1,8 +1,8 @@
  #makefile for bastet (c) 2004 Federico Poloni

@@ -18,17 +20,15 @@
  HISCORE=bastet.scores

  #in order to handle highscores properly, bastet must be setuid.
-@@ -11,8 +11,8 @@
+@@ -11,7 +11,7 @@
  GAME_USER=games

  CC=gcc
 -CFLAGS=-Wall -DHIGHSCORE_FILE=\"$(DATA_PREFIX)$(HISCORE)\"
--LDFLAGS=-lncurses
 +CFLAGS=-Wall -DHIGHSCORE_FILE=\"$(DATA_PREFIX)$(HISCORE)\" $(DEBCFLAGS)
-+LDFLAGS=-lcurse
+ LDFLAGS=-lncurses
  SOURCES=main.c game.c highscore.c bast.c
  EXNAME=bastet
-
 @@ -39,8 +39,3 @@

  install: $(EXNAME)

so please explain the above part and for patches in the future please use DEP-3 compliant description as described here

http://dep.debian.net/deps/dep3/

3. Please improve your patch naming here

--- bastet-0.41.orig/debian/patches/FTBFS
+++ bastet-0.41/debian/patches/FTBFS

and please use dep-3 headers to describe any patch as said above (patch naming could be something like, as an example if the package is FTBFS due to a missing link library with respect to binutils or linking order changes lets say, then the patch could be named as binutils_gold.patch as an instance so that its clear that package ftbfs due to binutils-gold)

4. Please make your changelog more verbose stating the reason why its FTBFS and what change you have proposed to fix the same

(as an example please see:

https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/natty/+source/gbgoffice/1.4-7ubuntu1)

(PS: I haven't tried to build the package with your patch and this was just a quick overview of the patch you supplied)

Marking as incomplete and unsubscribing sponsors in the meantime

Please resubscribe when ready

Keep up the work going mate!

regards and thanks!

@Bhavi

hey I fixed all the errors :)
Changelog is more verbose, patch with a better name and ya I admit that debdiff was bit weird.
Thanks for you comments

debdiff looks fine mate

looking into this now

regards

Ahah I find angel's patch here

http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=612176

why not incorporate the same in ubuntu until debian fixes it or perhaps ping the debian maintainer and wait until debian incorporates it?

Angel: your comments please

regards

Based on irc conversation on #ubuntu-motu

<c2tarun> coolbhavi: about angel's patch, his patch is good, bug geser told me that it is not proper to the conventions and directed me to create a patch with proper convention. both the patches will do fine :)
<coolbhavi> c2tarun, thanks for intimation mate ll upload it asap then :)

Having a look now

regards and thanks!

Hello tarun again

I was going a bit insane over this change

+- $(CC) $(LDFLAGS) -o $(EXNAME) $(SOURCES:.c=.o)
++ $(CC) $(LDFLAGS) -o $(EXNAME) $(SOURCES:.c=.o) $(LIBS)

when you have removed LDFLAGS why are you linking it again? If its required, then please explain the purpose of the change

regards and thanks

@Bhavi

LDFLAGS is linked for the default values, removing LDFLAGS will also removes the linking of the default values, to keep the default values (if any) I kept LDFLAGS

Hi mates, reviewing patches possibly Tarun patch is best approach to solve the problem using LIBS... If you upload this patch please attach it to debian bug to facilitate sync in next releases.

Regards,

Please use DEP3 tags and add (Closes: #XXXXX) to d/changelog entry. Where is XXXXXX then Debian bug number.
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/PackagingGuide/PatchSystems#Patch%20Tagging%20Guidelines

Thanks!

@Artur

I tried to fixed all you commented.
Thank you

Please fix entry of d/changelog to: (LP: #724310, Closes: #612176)

Please use short URLs in patch and add tag Bug-Debian, so:
Bug-Ubuntu: https://launchpad.net/bugs/724310
Bug-Debian: http://bugs.debian.org/612176

Angel's patch (as forwarded to Debian) is a little more streamlined, but they are functionally equivalent. I'll sponsor with the small patch header fixes suggested in comment 16. Thanks!

This bug was fixed in the package bastet - 0.41-6ubuntu1

---------------
bastet (0.41-6ubuntu1) natty; urgency=low

  * debian/patches/01_binutils_gold.patch:
    + link -lncurses during the build in Makefile to fix FTBFS with
      ld --no-add-needed. (LP: #724310, Closes: #612176)
 -- Tarun Kumar Mall <email address hidden> Mon, 28 Feb 2011 14:12:23 +0000