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.
Setting to ASSIGNED per Fedora Bug Triage workflow. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/BugStatusWorkFlow
Created attachment 352465 [details] root.log root.log for i386
Created attachment 352466 [details] build.log build.log for i386
Created attachment 352467 [details] mock.log mock.log for i386
Created attachment 352468 [details] root.log root.log for x86_64
Created attachment 352469 [details] build.log build.log for x86_64
Created attachment 352470 [details] mock.log mock.log for x86_64
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
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.
(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. ;)
(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