>>> Preparing source in /var/tmp/portage/net-analyzer/wireshark-1.10.1/work/wireshark-1.10.1 ... * Applying wireshark-1.6.13-ldflags.patch ... [ ok ] * Running eautoreconf in '/var/tmp/portage/net-analyzer/wireshark-1.10.1/work/wireshark-1.10.1' ... * Running libtoolize --install --copy --force --automake ... [ ok ] * Running aclocal -I ./aclocal-fallback ... [ ok ] * Running autoconf ... [ ok ] * Running autoheader ... [ ok ] ...skipping... reordercap.pod > reordercap.1 reordercap.pod around line 43: You forgot a '=back' before '=head1' POD document had syntax errors at /usr/bin/pod2man line 71. make[2]: *** [reordercap.1] Error 255 make[2]: Leaving directory `/var/tmp/portage/net-analyzer/wireshark-1.10.1/work/wireshark-1.10.1/doc' make[1]: *** [all-recursive] Error 1 make[1]: Leaving directory `/var/tmp/portage/net-analyzer/wireshark-1.10.1/work/wireshark-1.10.1' make: *** [all] Error 2 * ERROR: net-analyzer/wireshark-1.10.1::gentoo failed (compile phase): * emake failed
For which version of dev-lang/perl?
It's a warning here with dev-lang/perl-5.12.4 so I should be able to spot it and simply fix the file...
Created attachment 354718 [details, diff] wireshark-1.10.1-perl518.diff This is with perl-5.18.0 (from my private overlay). I know you're now very much tempted to close this bug as INVALID but this might re-appear once we get perl-5.18 into portage. I created a small patch to fix this problem and tested it against perl-5.16.3 which didn't complain. So maybe it is of some help for you once we have perl-5.18 in tree.
Fixed without a revision bump. I do wonder if we shouldn't roll our own doc tarball (upstream doesn't version them) and distributing those...
(In reply to Lars Wendler (Polynomial-C) from comment #3) > Created attachment 354718 [details, diff] [details, diff] > wireshark-1.10.1-perl518.diff > > This is with perl-5.18.0 (from my private overlay). > > I know you're now very much tempted to close this bug as INVALID but this I don't think you do know that. :)
(In reply to Jeroen Roovers from comment #5) > (In reply to Lars Wendler (Polynomial-C) from comment #3) > > Created attachment 354718 [details, diff] [details, diff] [details, diff] > > wireshark-1.10.1-perl518.diff > > > > This is with perl-5.18.0 (from my private overlay). > > > > I know you're now very much tempted to close this bug as INVALID but this > > I don't think you do know that. :) Okay, I have worded that bad. I meant I can imagine that you could be tempted to close this bug etc... ;) Thanks for taking care of this problem :)
Comment on attachment 354718 [details, diff] wireshark-1.10.1-perl518.diff Ah yes, that's exactly what I came up with. :-\
