[...] >>> Source prepared. >>> Configuring source in /var/tmp/portage/www-client/chromium-9999-r1/work/chromium-9999 ... build/gyp_chromium --depth=. -Ddisable_sse2=1 -Duse_system_bzip2=1 -Duse_system_ffmpeg=1 -Duse_system_flac=1 -Duse_system_icu=1 -Duse_system_libevent=1 -Duse_system_libjpeg=1 -Duse_system_libpng=1 -Duse_system_libwebp=1 -Duse_system_libxml=1 -Duse_system_speex=1 -Duse_system_vpx=1 -Duse_system_xdg_utils=1 -Duse_system_zlib=1 -Duse_cups=1 -Duse_gconf=1 -Duse_gnome_keyring=1 -Dlinux_link_gnome_keyring=1 -Dlinux_sandbox_path=/usr/lib64/chromium-browser-live/chrome_sandbox -Dlinux_sandbox_chrome_path=/usr/lib64/chromium-browser-live/chrome -Dproprietary_codecs=1 -Dtarget_arch=x64 -Dwerror= Updating projects from gyp files... ERROR: WebGL conformance tests do not exist. Traceback (most recent call last): File "build/gyp_chromium", line 170, in <module> sys.exit(gyp.main(args)) File "/var/tmp/portage/www-client/chromium-9999-r1/work/chromium-9999/tools/gyp/pylib/gyp/__init__.py", line 463, in main options.circular_check) [...] Full log attached.
Created attachment 280891 [details] Log file
This just needs third_party/webgl_confirmance to be kept intact.
Thanks you, Mike, when keeping third_party/webgl_confirmance, this problem disappears. More generally, should I submit bugs you have already fixed in your overlay? (sfntly, etc...). Other example, bug #374903 about ICU patch was originally submitted for chromium-9999 but was fixed only for chromium-14. Should I reopen a new bug report about that(because portage's chromium-9999 does not work out of box (without user modifications) for nearly one month)?
(In reply to comment #3) > Thanks you, Mike, when keeping third_party/webgl_confirmance, this problem > disappears. > > More generally, should I submit bugs you have already fixed in your overlay? > (sfntly, etc...). > I was waiting for the influx of libraries to settle down a bit. Feel free to report them now. :) > Other example, bug #374903 about ICU patch was originally submitted for > chromium-9999 but was fixed only for chromium-14. Should I reopen a new bug > report about that(because portage's chromium-9999 does not work out of box > (without user modifications) for nearly one month)? I'm guessing that Alex thought it would roll into upstream more quickly. You can re-open it, but I'm not sure that means anything will be done. :)
It's not a problem for me to manually update chromium-9999 (and to follow more closely your personal repository :) Until chromium-9999 breaks so long, I compiled it almost everyday and I just wondered if there was a reason that it has stalled in official portage. As you have already fixed the issues, I will wait the next unresolved one before reporting.
Thanks, fixed.
