Bug List: (This bug is not in your last search results)   Show last search results      Search page      Enter new bug
Bug#: 159318
Alias:
Product:
Component:
Status: RESOLVED
Resolution: FIXED
Assigned To: Gentoo X packagers <x11@gentoo.org>
Hardware:
OS:
Version:
Priority:
Severity:
Reporter: Kaiting Chen <Phoenixfire159@gmail.com>
Add CC:
CC:
Remove selected CCs
URL:
Summary:
Status Whiteboard:
Keywords:

Filename Description Type Creator Created Size Actions
Create a New Attachment (proposed patch, testcase, etc.) View All

Bug 159318 depends on: Show dependency tree
Bug 159318 blocks:
Votes: 0    Show votes for this bug    Vote for this bug

Additional Comments: (this is where you put emerge --info)


Not eligible to see or edit group visibility for this bug.






View Bug Activity   |   Format For Printing   |   XML   |   Clone This Bug


Description:   Opened: 2006-12-28 16:10 0000
Unfortunately I can't post the error message here because it's on the computer
that is kind of broken, but the problem is that libxcb can't emerge because
xsltproc in the libxslt package segfaults during the compile process.

It seems people from other distributions have been experiencing this bug as
well. Googling for "xsltproc libxcb" returns quite a few hits about this
problem. It looks like this patch on Makefile.in resolve the problem.

usesource.patch: new
--- /dev/null
+++ usesource.patch
@@ -0,0 +32 @@
+http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/xorg/2006-November/019675.html
+
+--- libxcb-1.0/src/Makefile.in.usesource       2006-12-06 15:22:10.000000000
-0500
++++ libxcb-1.0/src/Makefile.in 2006-12-06 15:23:45.000000000 -0500
+@@ -860,19 +860,17 @@
+ 
+ $(EXTHEADERS) $(EXTSOURCES): c-client.xsl
+ 
++# this hack works because we know that all the files have been
++# pregenerated, but make might try to rebuild them with buggy
++# xsltproc because system files in /usr/share/xcb (say) are
++# newer
+ .xml.h:
+-      @n=`dirname $*`; test -d $$n || (echo mkdir $$n; mkdir $$n)
+-      $(XSLTPROC) --stringparam mode header \
+-                  --stringparam base-path $(XCBPROTO_XCBINCLUDEDIR)/ \
+-                  --stringparam extension-path $(XCBPROTO_XCBINCLUDEDIR)/ \
+-                  -o $@ $(srcdir)/c-client.xsl $< 
++      test -f $@
++      touch $@
+ 
+ .xml.c:
+-      @n=`dirname $*`; test -d $$n || (echo mkdir $$n; mkdir $$n)
+-      $(XSLTPROC) --stringparam mode source \
+-                  --stringparam base-path $(XCBPROTO_XCBINCLUDEDIR)/ \
+-                  --stringparam extension-path $(XCBPROTO_XCBINCLUDEDIR)/ \
+-                  -o $@ $(srcdir)/c-client.xsl $< 
++      test -f $@
++      touch $@
+ 
+ $(EXTENSION_XML):
+       $(LN_S) -f $(XCBPROTO_XCBINCLUDEDIR)/$@ $@

------- Comment #1 From Jakub Moc (RETIRED) 2006-12-28 16:12:55 0000 -------
*** Bug 158974 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

------- Comment #2 From Jakub Moc (RETIRED) 2006-12-29 00:15:48 0000 -------
*** Bug 159332 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

------- Comment #3 From Joshua Baergen (RETIRED) 2006-12-30 08:36:20 0000 -------
Well, since it's apparently libxslt's fault, I'd rather solve it by using the
working version.

1.1.17 seems to work fine for me.  Can you confirm this?

CCed Gnome since they're the current maintainers of libxslt.

------- Comment #4 From Donnie Berkholz 2006-12-31 19:59:57 0000 -------
libxslt 1.1.19 supposedly has a fairly annoying bug (probably this one) that
will soon result in a .20.

------- Comment #5 From Hanno Boeck 2007-01-08 16:15:31 0000 -------
This seems to affect a bunch of packages, I'd suggest to mask 1.1.19 and wait
for an upstream bump.

------- Comment #6 From Diego E. 'Flameeyes' Pettenò 2007-01-17 01:27:30 0000 -------
It is nasty, and I remember this discussed at least one month or two ago on
xcb's mailing list, I agree with Hanno, it should be p.masked or fixed.

------- Comment #7 From Leonardo Boshell (RETIRED) 2007-01-18 03:11:34 0000 -------
My bad. A while ago I was asked by an upstream developer not to add
libxslt-1.1.18 nor 1.1.19 to the tree because of serious bugs in them, and once
I found out 1.1.19 had been added, I decided to wait for 1.1.20, which
unfortunately took longer than expected. In retrospective, I made the wrong
choice and probably should have hard-masked 1.1.19 early.

Now 1.1.20 is in the tree, which should not produce the segfault mentioned in
this bug. Please test and let me know if any b0rkness is still present :).

Thanks

------- Comment #8 From Joshua Baergen (RETIRED) 2007-01-18 13:18:44 0000 -------
Seems fine to me.  I'll let at least one more person test before I mark this
fixed.

------- Comment #9 From Erik Zeek 2007-01-18 14:47:37 0000 -------
Works for me!

------- Comment #10 From Joshua Baergen (RETIRED) 2007-01-18 17:42:16 0000 -------
(In reply to comment #9)
> Works for me!
> 

Thanks, marking fixed.

Bug List: (This bug is not in your last search results)   Show last search results      Search page      Enter new bug