Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Bug#1042358: openvswitch: FTBFS: make[3]: *** [Makefile:6743: manpage-check] Error 1
29 views
Skip to first unread message
Colin Watson
Aug 4, 2023, 1:40:04 PM8/4/23
to
On Fri, Aug 04, 2023 at 12:54:31PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 26, 2023 at 10:21:34PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > > an.tmac:lib/ovs-fields.7:762: warning: tbl preprocessor failed, or it or soelim was not run; table(s) likely not rendered (TE macro called with TW register undefined)
>
> I've sent a patch set for this upstream. It's currently waiting for
> mailing list moderation, but I've attached the messages here.
Frode Nordahl pointed out that this patch set introduces warnings with
earlier versions of groff. Here's an updated version that doesn't.
--
Colin Watson (he/him) [cjwa...@ubuntu.com]
> On Wed, Jul 26, 2023 at 10:21:34PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > > an.tmac:lib/ovs-fields.7:762: warning: tbl preprocessor failed, or it or soelim was not run; table(s) likely not rendered (TE macro called with TW register undefined)
>
> I've sent a patch set for this upstream. It's currently waiting for
> mailing list moderation, but I've attached the messages here.
Frode Nordahl pointed out that this patch set introduces warnings with
earlier versions of groff. Here's an updated version that doesn't.
--
Colin Watson (he/him) [cjwa...@ubuntu.com]
Thomas Goirand
Aug 7, 2023, 10:50:04 AM8/7/23
to
On 8/7/23 12:10, Colin Watson wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 07, 2023 at 10:54:52AM +0200, Thomas Goirand wrote:
>> I very much appreciate that you've sent patches for this bug, thanks for
>> this. However, it is difficult to apply your patches because they are sent
>> inline, and therefore hard to save on disk. Also, I would have done the work
>> by hand to avoid annoying you, but your "Message part 2" doesn't contain
>> the patch at all, only a diffstat.
>>
>> Could you send me the 6 patches as separate files, so I could more easily
>> add them to debian/patches? Or at least send the first patch that's
>> completely missing...
>
> I don't mind sending you patches in a different format if it's helpful,
> but I'm confused; I _did_ send them as separate files,
> MIME-encapsulated. How else would I have sent them as separate files?
>
> The "PATCH v2 0/5" message is a cover letter for the patch set. It's
> not supposed to contain a patch itself.
>
> Cheers,
Hi,
Ok, so if there's only 5 patches, not 6, then I should be able to manage
(even though it's not the best convenient way). Thanks for your patches.
Cheers,
Thomas Goirand (zigo)
> On Mon, Aug 07, 2023 at 10:54:52AM +0200, Thomas Goirand wrote:
>> I very much appreciate that you've sent patches for this bug, thanks for
>> this. However, it is difficult to apply your patches because they are sent
>> inline, and therefore hard to save on disk. Also, I would have done the work
>> by hand to avoid annoying you, but your "Message part 2" doesn't contain
>> the patch at all, only a diffstat.
>>
>> Could you send me the 6 patches as separate files, so I could more easily
>> add them to debian/patches? Or at least send the first patch that's
>> completely missing...
>
> I don't mind sending you patches in a different format if it's helpful,
> but I'm confused; I _did_ send them as separate files,
> MIME-encapsulated. How else would I have sent them as separate files?
>
> The "PATCH v2 0/5" message is a cover letter for the patch set. It's
> not supposed to contain a patch itself.
>
> Cheers,
Hi,
Ok, so if there's only 5 patches, not 6, then I should be able to manage
(even though it's not the best convenient way). Thanks for your patches.
Cheers,
Thomas Goirand (zigo)
0 new messages