From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Mon May 16 00:35:25 2022 Received: (at 54881) by debbugs.gnu.org; 16 May 2022 04:35:26 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:51336 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1nqSS5-000374-LA for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 16 May 2022 00:35:25 -0400 Received: from m42-5.mailgun.net ([69.72.42.5]:33862) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1nqSS4-00036q-4l for 54881@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 16 May 2022 00:35:24 -0400 DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha256; v=1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mg.wilsonb.com; q=dns/txt; s=krs; t=1652675724; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-Type: MIME-Version: Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: From: From: Subject: Subject: Cc: To: To: Date: Sender: Sender; bh=O1ZSeTjsY+zzRQJriKQPG1KivAq8jHvv20SdVvE/6fk=; b=26dXJcQymnDizKiTrBwa7TqLuYQpS6ZnQt9r1DIItQzJc6e8PKYLZSKtwesqaunzI86rx+5g mtjiJDKX9jXLIcpLV+bvrpewTh+5eyM3jtc2eCh6QNyh3BZZzKzAwTBYQuqt4/RUehIioZJY oWYbOxXsCTltH2UGNuilG4+bI6aH1uKtsCv59SV1dPwU78DPlnUfBJ/K2x1Zr1x7Mc8wAyBk oq6Ta2bg1rYh2Fn+gRyjwXRGgF5M8Ov7Pq+xJYl57XkKnIZLqlpKJ1khAVMxFbFf4TbdiuEt ptya11+EOfKsIA1/eKb0kmIkQuGT+rOhLn3QctZnmXF0HP9hgTwp1g== X-Mailgun-Sending-Ip: 69.72.42.5 X-Mailgun-Sid: WyIyZGU2ZiIsICI1NDg4MUBkZWJidWdzLmdudS5vcmciLCAiMDg1NDdhIl0= Received: from wilsonb.com (wilsonb.com [104.199.203.42]) by smtp-out-n03.prod.us-west-2.postgun.com with SMTP id 6281d486b77b16c56eaf4196 (version=TLS1.3, cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256); Mon, 16 May 2022 04:35:18 GMT Received: from localhost (aj171076.dynamic.ppp.asahi-net.or.jp [220.150.171.76]) by wilsonb.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 47820A0F2A; Mon, 16 May 2022 04:35:16 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=wilsonb.com; s=201703; t=1652675716; bh=O1ZSeTjsY+zzRQJriKQPG1KivAq8jHvv20SdVvE/6fk=; h=Date:To:Cc:Subject:From:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=CuNf1Lk0ogK4SMBdjZpMUgAzqnk4/jc0Xn92mVwX/kJLCA3s+QYSYaw2grCk5yRLg YWSAMXABVtjn8lFwxaG1UqD419ynYDWdfi6st/QqpUYOEaye33/dJNmzvPTyh7j6Lm 7+aZXCfeCtUl92rPqtpNLjrnSMI8RUpkiWgofmqClxVv8Y8rnQH9PT5371itLkKcF9 JkJMGJAk9PZBbRlMQO0ECBo5PlAKTHlQbIWfflvcE1EOrGzG22t4RMPIaHHvhEM9fJ 19S4L0YuVXrnr5cdkuNrV3dM8fX4XXvCjK9oUd+WfI6GLkGTiAeXTDUqiWFE8pUoDW BULOb82ctyr4UwaKIhFJ18LbTFRles7gxtVaFUkT7lJYn2SDrnznMNxvEwlooIOiFG DrsdhDTOl1GHqekoQiv5dk2gSIrEKurG2l7P3Z+1Omr+B4l8YdndIFfDy9Kh8DvG9V KVEcEMZQIRTLi2vBbDL80P33wmyCY8dDDWQn4JuKZl9wJqzd/NPsH+uHMasalurlzc 1YSqTUgE9FiMenEHEv0wEaHe3bG3AqkQADVYczp1uzjoE2RVxOPDRmfbschVt3QPaf TYV9VLG/gJy/wTvN4zZdWV1oIqWQh7UHF16MIlJoDxEd5L97JKN8w5qkRreSjupxXb UsX1URhh0p5GDygsFm9pgLG8= Date: Mon, 16 May 2022 13:35:14 +0900 To: Mathieu Othacehe Subject: Re: bug#54881: gnu: Add ncurses-5, ncurses/tinfo-5. From: "B. Wilson" References: <2AOSR0ZNKROP0.2ALNTRXGSLUNC@"@WILSONB.COM> <8735hjkut6.fsf@gnu.org> <37PRDXTQ5CR85.2RR5MCYEDFY9D@"@WILSONB.COM> <871qx24rn2.fsf@gnu.org> <3H25Z9FO2GD5L.2KS887ZPZ2FMX@"@WILSONB.COM> <87wnen9g12.fsf@gnu.org> In-Reply-To: <87wnen9g12.fsf@gnu.org> Message-Id: <252M9AXIQCSXF.3L2QLD6T8JJ33@"@WILSONB.COM> User-Agent: mblaze/1.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: 2.2 (++) X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "debbugs.gnu.org", has NOT identified this incoming email as spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see the administrator of that system for details. Content preview: > I removed this bit and it looks like the introduction of the > make-ncurses-package procedure is causing a mass-rebuild. There's > probably another issue as this patch shouldn't cause any change to [...] Content analysis details: (2.2 points, 10.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -0.0 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE RBL: Sender listed at https://www.dnswl.org/, no trust [69.72.42.5 listed in list.dnswl.org] -0.0 RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2 RBL: Average reputation (+2) [69.72.42.5 listed in wl.mailspike.net] 1.2 RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET RBL: Received via a relay in bl.spamcop.net [Blocked - see ] 1.0 MSGID_MULTIPLE_AT Message-ID contains multiple '@' characters -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 0.0 SPF_HELO_NONE SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record -0.0 T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE No description available. X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 54881 Cc: 54881@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: 1.2 (+) X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "debbugs.gnu.org", has NOT identified this incoming email as spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see the administrator of that system for details. Content preview: > I removed this bit and it looks like the introduction of the > make-ncurses-package procedure is causing a mass-rebuild. There's > probably another issue as this patch shouldn't cause any change to [...] Content analysis details: (1.2 points, 10.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -0.0 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE RBL: Sender listed at https://www.dnswl.org/, no trust [69.72.42.5 listed in list.dnswl.org] -0.0 RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2 RBL: Average reputation (+2) [69.72.42.5 listed in wl.mailspike.net] 1.2 RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET RBL: Received via a relay in bl.spamcop.net [Blocked - see ] 1.0 MSGID_MULTIPLE_AT Message-ID contains multiple '@' characters -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 0.0 SPF_HELO_NONE SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record -0.0 T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE No description available. -1.0 MAILING_LIST_MULTI Multiple indicators imply a widely-seen list manager > I removed this bit and it looks like the introduction of the > make-ncurses-package procedure is causing a mass-rebuild. There's > probably another issue as this patch shouldn't cause any change to the > original package definition. Yikes. That's definitely a bug. The package definition for the existing ver= sion should end up the exact same. Will look into it. By the way, how did you check the mass rebuild? Is there a simple command t= o check reverse dependencies or the like? Cheers, B. Wilson