app-admin/keepassx should use eqmake4() from qt4.eclass Currently it calls a non-existant eqmake() function.
*** Bug 213573 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
And because of that, it fails: Trying to build keepassx-0.3.0a fails: >>> Source unpacked. >>> Compiling source in /var/tmp/portage/app-admin/keepassx-0.3.0a/work/KeePassX-0.3.0a ... Updating '/var/tmp/portage/app-admin/keepassx-0.3.0a/work/KeePassX-0.3.0a/src/translations/keepass-cs_CZ.qm'... Generated 299 translations (238 finished and 61 unfinished) Ignored 254 untranslated source texts Updating '/var/tmp/portage/app-admin/keepassx-0.3.0a/work/KeePassX-0.3.0a/src/translations/keepass-de_DE.qm'... Generated 306 translations (238 finished and 68 unfinished) Ignored 247 untranslated source texts Updating '/var/tmp/portage/app-admin/keepassx-0.3.0a/work/KeePassX-0.3.0a/src/translations/keepass-es_ES.qm'... Generated 240 translations (180 finished and 60 unfinished) Ignored 313 untranslated source texts Updating '/var/tmp/portage/app-admin/keepassx-0.3.0a/work/KeePassX-0.3.0a/src/translations/keepass-fr_FR.qm'... Generated 299 translations (238 finished and 61 unfinished) Ignored 254 untranslated source texts Updating '/var/tmp/portage/app-admin/keepassx-0.3.0a/work/KeePassX-0.3.0a/src/translations/keepass-ja_JP.qm'... Generated 490 translations (468 finished and 22 unfinished) Ignored 63 untranslated source texts Updating '/var/tmp/portage/app-admin/keepassx-0.3.0a/work/KeePassX-0.3.0a/src/translations/keepass-ru_RU.qm'... Generated 285 translations (225 finished and 60 unfinished) Ignored 268 untranslated source texts Updating '/var/tmp/portage/app-admin/keepassx-0.3.0a/work/KeePassX-0.3.0a/src/translations/keepass-xx_XX.qm'... Generated 0 translations (0 finished and 0 unfinished) Ignored 553 untranslated source texts /var/tmp/portage/app-admin/keepassx-0.3.0a/temp/environment: line 2460: eqmake: command not found
Thanks Ingmar...fixed. Alexander: a) Search before you file, not afterwards. b) don't hassle non-maintainers (I only fixed it because I did the change that broke it), Timo now "owns" keepassx. c) Leave the cc field alone when the report field points to bug-wranglers...there is a reason to it.
(In reply to comment #3) > Thanks Ingmar...fixed. > > Alexander: > a) Search before you file, not afterwards. I did and found nothing directly. Maybe I searched for the wrong terms. > b) don't hassle non-maintainers (I only fixed it because I did the change that > broke it), Timo now "owns" keepassx. Well, the metadata file listed you as the maintainer, so sorry for hassling a maintainer for a package that he owns (per the metadata.xml file). > c) Leave the cc field alone when the report field points to > bug-wranglers...there is a reason to it. Not my fault. Change bugzilla so, that it's possible to set the assignee to something other than bug-wranglers.
(In reply to comment #4) > > b) don't hassle non-maintainers (I only fixed it because I did the change that > > broke it), Timo now "owns" keepassx. > > Well, the metadata file listed you as the maintainer, so sorry for hassling a > maintainer for a package that he owns (per the metadata.xml file). Then resync, for five days now Timo is maintainer. And Ingmar was able to assign to the correct person. > > c) Leave the cc field alone when the report field points to > > bug-wranglers...there is a reason to it. > > Not my fault. Change bugzilla so, that it's possible to set the assignee to > something other than bug-wranglers. Ehm, bug wranglers do the assigning (within some hours) and the reason is that bugs don't get wrongly assigned as here would have been the case. We have a reporting howto which states exactly that bug wranglers will get the bug to the right person.
(In reply to comment #5) > (In reply to comment #4) > > > b) don't hassle non-maintainers (I only fixed it because I did the change that > > > broke it), Timo now "owns" keepassx. > > > > Well, the metadata file listed you as the maintainer, so sorry for hassling a > > maintainer for a package that he owns (per the metadata.xml file). > > Then resync, for five days now Timo is maintainer. And Ingmar was able to > assign to the correct person. I also assigned it to the correct person: opfer@g.o. That person was listed as the maintainer in metadata.xml (now metadata.xml lists Timo, of course). > > > > c) Leave the cc field alone when the report field points to > > > bug-wranglers...there is a reason to it. > > > > Not my fault. Change bugzilla so, that it's possible to set the assignee to > > something other than bug-wranglers. > > Ehm, bug wranglers do the assigning (within some hours) and the reason is that > bugs don't get wrongly assigned as here would have been the case. Well, but seeing that the bug was not wrongly assigned, as it was assgined to the maintainer, I don't quite get what you're bitching about here. > We have a reporting howto which states exactly that bug wranglers will get the > bug to the right person. Ok. You've got quite an attitude, don't you?
(In reply to comment #6) > > Then resync, for five days now Timo is maintainer. And Ingmar was able to > > assign to the correct person. > > I also assigned it to the correct person: opfer@g.o. That person was listed as > the maintainer in metadata.xml (now metadata.xml lists Timo, of course). No. You did not. Since 11 Mar 2008 I am not maintaining keepassx anymore, your bug has been filed on 16 Mar 2008. So you are wrong. Full stop. > > > > c) Leave the cc field alone when the report field points to > > > > bug-wranglers...there is a reason to it. > > > > > > Not my fault. Change bugzilla so, that it's possible to set the assignee to > > > something other than bug-wranglers. > > > > Ehm, bug wranglers do the assigning (within some hours) and the reason is that > > bugs don't get wrongly assigned as here would have been the case. > > Well, but seeing that the bug was not wrongly assigned, as it was assgined to > the maintainer, I don't quite get what you're bitching about here. I am not bitching I am trying to explain a fact to you. So you state Ingmar did assing this bug 213536 wrongly, while you did the correct thing on 213573? Imagine Timo took over because I was away. And imagine you would be able to assign bugs yourself. Then your bug 213573 would have been rotting forever. That is my point. Let bug wranglers do it. > > We have a reporting howto which states exactly that bug wranglers will get the > > bug to the right person. > > Ok. > > You've got quite an attitude, don't you? No, you just don't get simple things. So I see that taking some time to explain why something you did was clearly wrong was just a waste.
(In reply to comment #7) > (In reply to comment #6) > > > Then resync, for five days now Timo is maintainer. And Ingmar was able to > > > assign to the correct person. > > > > I also assigned it to the correct person: opfer@g.o. That person was listed as > > the maintainer in metadata.xml (now metadata.xml lists Timo, of course). > > No. You did not. Since 11 Mar 2008 I am not maintaining keepassx anymore, No argument there. > your bug has been filed on 16 Mar 2008. So you are wrong. Full stop. As there was no revision bump, I did not see a need to sync. Why should I have synced? What I did, was that I had a look at metadata.xml and found an email adress there in the maintainer field. I would've assigned it to what is listed as the maintainer. > > > > > c) Leave the cc field alone when the report field points to > > > > > bug-wranglers...there is a reason to it. > > > > > > > > Not my fault. Change bugzilla so, that it's possible to set the assignee to > > > > something other than bug-wranglers. > > > > > > Ehm, bug wranglers do the assigning (within some hours) and the reason is that > > > bugs don't get wrongly assigned as here would have been the case. > > > > Well, but seeing that the bug was not wrongly assigned, as it was assgined to > > the maintainer, I don't quite get what you're bitching about here. > > I am not bitching Yes, you absolutely are. > I am trying to explain a fact to you. So you state Ingmar > did assing this bug 213536 wrongly, while you did the correct thing on 213573? No, I'm saying that. I'm saying that we both did it correctly, as we did it on different days and in the time between, important things changed. > Imagine Timo took over because I was away. And imagine you would be able to > assign bugs yourself. Then your bug 213573 would have been rotting forever. Fact is, that I duped the bug myself. How would it have been rotting forever? > > > We have a reporting howto which states exactly that bug wranglers will get the > > > bug to the right person. > > > > Ok. > > > > You've got quite an attitude, don't you? > > No, you just don't get simple things. Yep, you *do* have quite an attitude. > So I see that taking some time to > explain why something you did was clearly wrong was just a waste. You did not explain, you bitched. Let me quote you: "don't hassle non-maintainers". Note the word "hassle". You know, in german we've got the saying "Der Ton macht die Musik".
