45295 2004-03-21 10:39 0000 gnome-panel-2.5.93 fails on automake without gtk-doc package 2004-04-03 03:16:48 0000 1 1 1 Unclassified Gentoo Linux GNOME unspecified All Linux RESOLVED FIXED P2 minor --- 1 matt@breakmygentoo.net gnome@gentoo.org pvdabeel@gentoo.org matt@breakmygentoo.net 2004-03-21 10:39:28 0000 Subject pretty much says it all... Patch attached, error message below: USE="doc" ebuild gnome-panel-2.5.93.ebuild unpack >>> md5 src_uri ;-) gnome-panel-2.5.93.tar.bz2 >>> Unpacking source... >>> Unpacking gnome-panel-2.5.93.tar.bz2 to /var/tmp/portage/gnome-panel-2.5.93/work configure.in:26: warning: AC_ARG_PROGRAM invoked multiple times gtk-doc.make:7: GTK_DOC_USE_LIBTOOL does not appear in AM_CONDITIONAL gtk-doc.make:44: ENABLE_GTK_DOC does not appear in AM_CONDITIONAL gtk-doc.make:135: ENABLE_GTK_DOC does not appear in AM_CONDITIONAL !!! ERROR: gnome-base/gnome-panel-2.5.93 failed. !!! Function src_unpack, Line 51, Exitcode 1 !!! (no error message) Reproducible: Always Steps to Reproduce: matt@breakmygentoo.net 2004-03-21 10:41:25 0000 Created an attachment (id=27743) ebuild patch This patch just adds a test and optional sed line to the ebuild... foser@gentoo.org 2004-03-21 11:04:33 0000 That would work for now, but the real solution would be to fix the makefile script to not load the gconf defaults. Maybe you could patch that up ? blocker ? -> easy workaround is present matt@breakmygentoo.net 2004-03-21 12:03:42 0000 Why not just do the gconf sed on the Makefile after configure is done? Saves time (no aclocal/automake needed) on the compile, and doesn't require this hack either... I set to blocker since it keeps anyone from emerging that doesn't have doc in their USE flags, or gtk-doc emerged. Counts as blockage in my book.... foser@gentoo.org 2004-03-21 12:51:13 0000 true, the hack will suffice for now. But what i'd like to see is a full fix... oh and why we do the sed before is that in general we consider it a bad habit to sed in generated files (patching should happen in _unpack, configure in _compile) matt@breakmygentoo.net 2004-03-21 12:58:18 0000 I understand the reasoning behind sed/patches in src_unpack, but it just seems that in this case it would make more sense in src_compile... I can look into a full fix, but no promises... Got a lot on my plate atm.. foser@gentoo.org 2004-03-22 15:33:44 0000 ok for the time being i moved the sed to src_configure in 2.6.0, but i'd like to see a real fix here someday. Please test foser@gentoo.org 2004-03-23 03:18:27 0000 *** Bug 45451 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** foser@gentoo.org 2004-04-03 03:16:48 0000 i'm going to assume it works, still waiting for the clean patch though. 27743 2004-03-21 10:41 0000 ebuild patch gnome-panel-2.5.93_gtk-doc.patch text/plain LS0tIGdub21lLXBhbmVsLTIuNS45My5lYnVpbGQub3JpZwkyMDA0LTAzLTIxIDExOjMyOjEwLjAw MDAwMDAwMCAtMDYwMAorKysgZ25vbWUtcGFuZWwtMi41LjkzLmVidWlsZAkyMDA0LTAzLTIxIDEx OjQ4OjUwLjAyMTU0OTY1NiAtMDYwMApAQCAtNDMsNiArNDMsMTAgQEAKIAkjIFdlIHNob3VsZCBw YXRjaCBpbiBhIHN3aXRjaCBoZXJlIGFuZCBzZW5kIGl0IHVwc3RyZWFtCiAJc2VkIC1pICdzOi0t bG9hZDotdjonIGdub21lLXBhbmVsL01ha2VmaWxlLmFtCiAKKwlpZiBbICEgYHVzZSBkb2NgIF07 IHRoZW4KKwkgICBzZWQgLWkgJy9pbmNsdWRlICQodG9wX3NyY2RpcilcL2d0ay1kb2MubWFrZS9k JyBkb2MvcmVmZXJlbmNlL3BhbmVsLWFwcGxldC9NYWtlZmlsZS5hbQorCWZpCisKIAlXQU5UX0FV VE9NQUtFPTEuNyBhY2xvY2FsIHx8IGRpZQogCVdBTlRfQVVUT01BS0U9MS43IGF1dG9tYWtlIHx8 IGRpZQogCg==