The following ebuilds/eclasses are using the almost deprecated gnuconfig_update function from gnuconfig.eclass: ./dev-libs/nspr/nspr-4.4.1-r2.ebuild: gnuconfig_update ./dev-libs/nspr/nspr-4.6.1-r2.ebuild: gnuconfig_update ./dev-libs/nspr/nspr-4.6.1-r3.ebuild: gnuconfig_update ./dev-libs/nspr/nspr-4.6.2.ebuild: gnuconfig_update ./dev-libs/nspr/nspr-4.6.3.ebuild: gnuconfig_update ./dev-libs/nspr/nspr-4.6.3-r1.ebuild: gnuconfig_update ./dev-libs/nspr/nspr-4.6.4.ebuild: gnuconfig_update This might be due by various reasons, and some of them cannot be worked around at the current time, so please find your case in the following list: * the ebuild does not use econf, but ./configure, because it uses a very old version of autoconf that does not support the parameters we pass; [1] * the software use config.{guess,sub} although not using autotools, thus econf cannot be used; [1] * the ebuild uses ./configure just for fun; [2] * the ebuild uses ../configure or variants thereof to run a different configure script than the one in the current directory; [3] * the ebuild uses an autogen script or some other autotools-rebuilding script that calls ./configure; [4] * the ebuild calls ./configure because it's doing an inline-build of another package. [1] Then see the procedure to handle this bug: [1] You cannot drop gnuconfig_update, so please leave the bug open, but set the status whiteboard to "Waiting autoepatch". [2] Fix the ebuild, use econf! [3] econf accepts a ECONF_SOURCE variable to tell it to run the configure found in another directory; to run ../configure just use ECONF_SOURCE=".." econf. [4] Fix your autotools with http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/qa/autofailure.xml adnd then use econf. Once you're using econf, it will take care of updating gnuconfig by itself. Thanks from Diego and Mike
OK. Added nspr-4.6.4-r1, please check it out. I have masked it for now.
ping mozilla
Index: nspr-4.6.4-r1.ebuild =================================================================== RCS file: /var/cvsroot/gentoo-x86/dev-libs/nspr/nspr-4.6.4-r1.ebuild,v retrieving revision 1.1 diff -u -B -r1.1 nspr-4.6.4-r1.ebuild --- nspr-4.6.4-r1.ebuild 5 Jan 2007 21:43:27 -0000 1.1 +++ nspr-4.6.4-r1.ebuild 16 Jan 2007 20:33:41 -0000 @@ -22,11 +22,11 @@ src_unpack() { unpack ${A} cd "${S}" - EPATCH_OPTS="-p2" epatch "${FILESDIR}"/${PN}-4.6.1-config.patch - EPATCH_OPTS="-p2" epatch "${FILESDIR}"/${PN}-4.6.1-config-1.patch + epatch "${FILESDIR}"/${PN}-4.6.1-config.patch + epatch "${FILESDIR}"/${PN}-4.6.1-config-1.patch epatch "${FILESDIR}"/${PN}-4.6.4-config-2.patch - EPATCH_OPTS="-p2" epatch "${FILESDIR}"/${PN}-4.6.1-lang.patch - EPATCH_OPTS="-p2" epatch "${FILESDIR}"/${PN}-4.6.1-prtime.patch + epatch "${FILESDIR}"/${PN}-4.6.1-lang.patch + epatch "${FILESDIR}"/${PN}-4.6.1-prtime.patch eautoreconf } Unless you have goo reason for needing the epatch ops? But I have yet to see any reason for it so I would revert it.
Sure there is... What do you think, I just put it there? Adding files without -j will put them at the wrong place.
(In reply to comment #4) > Sure there is... What do you think, I just put it there? > Adding files without -j will put them at the wrong place. > Aight mozilla herd has control of this package it has been surrendered by crypto, I will have that reverted and unmasked.
(In reply to comment #4) > Sure there is... What do you think, I just put it there? > Adding files without -j will put them at the wrong place. > # You do not have to specify '-p' option to patch, as it will # try with -p0 to -p5 until it succeed, or fail at -p5.
(In reply to comment #6) > (In reply to comment #4) > > Sure there is... What do you think, I just put it there? > > Adding files without -j will put them at the wrong place. > > > > # You do not have to specify '-p' option to patch, as it will > # try with -p0 to -p5 until it succeed, or fail at -p5. > This what I initially done. Please try it your-self. You will see that at least the pkg-config stuff is going to the wrong place. But I don't mind. If you are going to maintain it do whatever you feel right.
So what's left to do here? Just remove the mask? Is everyone OK with unmasking as-is?
(In reply to comment #8) > So what's left to do here? Just remove the mask? Is everyone OK with unmasking > as-is? > Yeah, why not. We should make it stable asap.
Unmasked the fixed version. We'll request a stabilization of that version soon.
Reopen when the ebuilds are removed please, no one moment before.
This was finally done.
