First Last Prev Next    No search results available      Search page      Enter new bug
Bug#: 96468
Alias:
Product:
Component:
Status: RESOLVED
Resolution: FIXED
Assigned To: dotnet <dotnet@gentoo.org>
Hardware:
OS:
Version:
Priority:
Severity:
Reporter: Vincent Penne <ziggy@sashipa.com>
Add CC:
CC:
URL:
Summary:
Status Whiteboard:
Keywords:

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

Bug 96468 depends on: Show dependency tree
Bug 96468 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: 2005-06-18 08:46 0000
gnome-sharp and other gtk-sharp packages (version 1.9.5 (sure) and 2.5.5
probably too) miss a dependency on the correct version of libgnomecanvas (2.10.0
required), so it silently fails to build when the condition is not met
(installing just nothing instead)

At least another similar missing dependency exists in the gtk-sharp packages,
unfortunatly I can't remember which it is , and now I've upgraded my system so
the problem doesn't occure anymore. 


Reproducible: Always
Steps to Reproduce:
1.Install a version of libgnomecanvas earlier than 2.10.0
2.Install gnome-sharp 1.9.5
3.Check the list of installed files, nothing worth has actually been installed
because configure noticed that libgnomecanvas was too old and thus disabled
automatically the build of the gnome-sharp component

Actual Results:  
Software relying on gnome-sharp-1.9.5 wouldn't compile (like for example the
unstable version of gtksourceview and monodevelop).

Expected Results:  
Compile :)


Suggestion : in addition to specifying the exact dependency (which may vary in
later versions of gnome-sharp) add a sanity check that verify that the line telling 

      * gnome-sharp.dll: yes

appear at the end of the ./configure process and stop the ebuild process if it's
not the case. (and similar for the other components)

------- Comment #1 From Peter Johanson (RETIRED) 2005-06-18 21:36:23 0000 -------
I've just checked the configure.in script for gtk-sharp-1.9.5, and it
definitely
lists:

GNOME_REQUIRED_VERSION=2.6.0

The same is true for gtk-sharp-2.5.5. Can you please give me the exact error
messages you were having when trying to compile gnome-sharp? Thanks.

------- Comment #2 From Vincent Penne 2005-06-19 05:35:23 0000 -------
The configure script is correct, it's the ebuild which has a problem. However
my
report isn't completely accurate, it's not 2.10.0 the threshold for
libgnomecanvas, but 2.6.0 (as the configure script checks

libgnomecanvas-2.0 >= $GNOME_REQUIRED_VERSION 

and GNOME_REQUIRED_VERSION in the configure is indeed 2.6.0)

But the ebuild only mentions >= libgnomecanvas-2.0, it should be 2.6 instead.

The problem is that the configure script doesn't stop the building of the
package when the condition on libgnomecanvas is not met because that script is
also used to build other parts of gtk-sharp. So in the case of gnome-sharp, if
you don't have a recent enough libgnomecanvas package installed, the ebuild
succeed, but it actually doesn't install anything at all.

That's why I proposed to add a sanity check in the ebuild to check that the
line

      * gnome-sharp.dll: yes

appear at the end of the configure stage. 

------- Comment #3 From Peter Johanson (RETIRED) 2005-06-19 08:40:37 0000 -------
Ok, dependancies fix in CVS.

As to the checking of stuff, I'd really prefer not to. deps are there so we
don't *have* to constantly be checking config.log to make sure things are the
way they should be. But at the same time, this is a pretty special case, as
we're doing wierd build things that aren't as they were intended upstream.

The main part of this bug is fixed, but i'm leaving this open while pondering
how/if we should do a sanity check like proposed.

------- Comment #4 From foser (RETIRED) 2005-06-21 10:27:29 0000 -------
You should really provide the output, it is much easier to check what API is
missing and when it got added.

@latexer : app/lib devs do not always pay attention to when the API they use got
introduced, we see this happen ever so often and there's really not much we can
do about it (besides having it in ~arch).

------- Comment #5 From Peter Johanson (RETIRED) 2005-08-16 18:27:51 0000 -------
Marking fixed, I don't personally have the time or motivation to do this, over
just checking/testing the version requirements when bumping.

First Last Prev Next    No search results available      Search page      Enter new bug