<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="yes" ?>
<!DOCTYPE bugzilla SYSTEM "http://bugs.gentoo.org/bugzilla.dtd">

<bugzilla version="2.22.7"
          urlbase="http://bugs.gentoo.org/"
          maintainer="bugzilla@gentoo.org"
>

    <bug>
          <bug_id>137414</bug_id>
          
          <creation_ts>2006-06-20 13:43 0000</creation_ts>
          <short_desc>dev-libs/libusb-0.1.10a doesn&apos;t want to build in catalyst</short_desc>
          <delta_ts>2007-03-16 11:51:22 0000</delta_ts>
          <reporter_accessible>1</reporter_accessible>
          <cclist_accessible>1</cclist_accessible>
          <classification_id>1</classification_id>
          <classification>Unclassified</classification>
          <product>Gentoo Linux</product>
          <component>Unspecified</component>
          <version>unspecified</version>
          <rep_platform>All</rep_platform>
          <op_sys>Linux</op_sys>
          <bug_status>RESOLVED</bug_status>
          <resolution>FIXED</resolution>
          <bug_file_loc>http://dev.gentoo.org/~agaffney/misc/libusb_failure.log</bug_file_loc>
          
          
          <priority>P2</priority>
          <bug_severity>normal</bug_severity>
          <target_milestone>---</target_milestone>
          
          
          
          <everconfirmed>1</everconfirmed>
          <reporter>agaffney@gentoo.org</reporter>
          <assigned_to>liquidx@gentoo.org</assigned_to>
          <cc>decibelshelp@charter.net</cc>
    
    <cc>mike@emobilenetworks.com</cc>
    
    <cc>release@gentoo.org</cc>
    
    <cc>tomas@salfischberger.nl</cc>

      

      
          <long_desc isprivate="0">
            <who>agaffney@gentoo.org</who>
            <bug_when>2006-06-20 13:43:30 0000</bug_when>
            <thetext>For some reason, libusb-0.1.10a absolutely hates me for my x86 catalyst builds running on amd64. The build failure is in the URL field for this bug. Oddly, I could not reproduce the bug in any setup.

I stabilized libusb-0.1.11 in my snapshot, and it builds without a problem. Any chance of getting libusb-0.1.11 pushed into stable in the next few weeks?</thetext>
          </long_desc>
          <long_desc isprivate="0">
            <who>mike@emobilenetworks.com</who>
            <bug_when>2006-06-21 23:37:27 0000</bug_when>
            <thetext>I had the same problem when MAKEOPTS=&quot;-jN&quot; (N &gt; 1)

add the following line to Makefile.am fix this problem
libusbpp_la_DEPENDENCIES = libusb.la

It is already fixed in libusb-0.1.11.</thetext>
          </long_desc>
          <long_desc isprivate="0">
            <who>agaffney@gentoo.org</who>
            <bug_when>2006-06-22 08:27:24 0000</bug_when>
            <thetext>I&apos;m pretty sure I had tried a blank MAKEOPTS in catalyst, and I wasn&apos;t able to reproduce it on my host system using -j7. Anyway, all the more reason to stable 0.1.11 :)</thetext>
          </long_desc>
          <long_desc isprivate="0">
            <who>agaffney@gentoo.org</who>
            <bug_when>2006-06-26 15:24:04 0000</bug_when>
            <thetext>Can we get this either fixed in 0.1.10a or 0.1.11 stabilized?</thetext>
          </long_desc>
          <long_desc isprivate="0">
            <who>liquidx@gentoo.org</who>
            <bug_when>2006-09-02 04:11:43 0000</bug_when>
            <thetext>please stablise dev-libs/libusb-0.1.11.

NOTE: do not stablise dev-libs/libusb-0.1.12! there are problems with it regarding /proc and /dev support.</thetext>
          </long_desc>
          <long_desc isprivate="0">
            <who>liquidx@gentoo.org</who>
            <bug_when>2006-09-02 04:13:04 0000</bug_when>
            <thetext>*** Bug 145536 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***</thetext>
          </long_desc>
          <long_desc isprivate="0">
            <who>liquidx@gentoo.org</who>
            <bug_when>2006-09-02 04:16:29 0000</bug_when>
            <thetext>setting example first. stablising for x86.
</thetext>
          </long_desc>
          <long_desc isprivate="0">
            <who>corsair@gentoo.org</who>
            <bug_when>2006-09-02 12:50:22 0000</bug_when>
            <thetext>ppc64 stable</thetext>
          </long_desc>
          <long_desc isprivate="0">
            <who>weeve@gentoo.org</who>
            <bug_when>2006-09-02 20:23:23 0000</bug_when>
            <thetext>Stable on SPARC</thetext>
          </long_desc>
          <long_desc isprivate="0">
            <who>hansmi@gentoo.org</who>
            <bug_when>2006-09-03 02:01:56 0000</bug_when>
            <thetext>Stable on ppc.</thetext>
          </long_desc>
          <long_desc isprivate="0">
            <who>kumba@gentoo.org</who>
            <bug_when>2006-09-03 21:44:19 0000</bug_when>
            <thetext>Stable on mips.</thetext>
          </long_desc>
          <long_desc isprivate="0">
            <who>dertobi123@gentoo.org</who>
            <bug_when>2006-10-15 05:10:49 0000</bug_when>
            <thetext>hppa stable</thetext>
          </long_desc>
          <long_desc isprivate="0">
            <who>jakub@gentoo.org</who>
            <bug_when>2007-03-16 11:51:22 0000</bug_when>
            <thetext>0.1.11 or later stable everywhere, closing.
</thetext>
          </long_desc>
      
    </bug>

</bugzilla>