Bug 45295 - gnome-panel-2.5.93 fails on automake without gtk-doc package
Bug#: 45295 Product:  Gentoo Linux Version: unspecified Platform: All
OS/Version: Linux Status: RESOLVED Severity: minor Priority: P2
Resolution: FIXED Assigned To: gnome@gentoo.org Reported By: matt@breakmygentoo.net
Component: GNOME
URL: 
Summary: gnome-panel-2.5.93 fails on automake without gtk-doc package
Keywords:  
Status Whiteboard: 
Opened: 2004-03-21 10:39 0000
Description:   Opened: 2004-03-21 10:39 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:

------- Comment #1 From Matthew Schick 2004-03-21 10:41:25 0000 ------- 
Created an attachment (id=27743) [details]
ebuild patch

This patch just adds a test and optional sed line to the ebuild...

------- Comment #2 From foser (RETIRED) 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

------- Comment #3 From Matthew Schick 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....

------- Comment #4 From foser (RETIRED) 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)

------- Comment #5 From Matthew Schick 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..

------- Comment #6 From foser (RETIRED) 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

------- Comment #7 From foser (RETIRED) 2004-03-23 03:18:27 0000 ------- 
*** Bug 45451 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

------- Comment #8 From foser (RETIRED) 2004-04-03 03:16:48 0000 ------- 
i'm going to assume it works, still waiting for the clean patch though.