Finally I've found the time to create e new kdebluetooth CVS snapshot. I've corrected a lot of things. - Gcc 3.4 compilation - Now it needs bluez-lib-2.7 and so I've dropped the bluez-sdp dependencies. - The configure script should work well with the new deps. PLEASE DON'T CHANGE the ebuild name, ( like the last time ) but delete the old ebuilds. The new name is kdebluetooth-0.0.date so when we'll release version 1.0 of kdebluetooth this will be upgraded without any problem. You can find the source and the ebuild here: Ebuild: http://www.webalice.it/simone.gotti/kdebluetooth-0.0.20040625-ebuild.tar.bz2 Source: http://www.webalice.it/simone.gotti/kdebluetooth-0.0.20040625.tar.bz2 Thanks. Reproducible: Always Steps to Reproduce: 1. 2. 3.
I've updated to a new ebuild and snapshot. Unfortunately the last one in this bug didn't went in the portage tree. I hope this will go in because there are a LOT of new stuff. This will resolve bug #53306 Now the kioslaves should work with kde 3.3 too. If you don't know, with bluez-libs-2.8 Marcel Holtmann removed the libsdp and putted all the functions in libbluetooth, so every programm that is linked to libsdp won't work and need some changed. I've changed the makefiles and configure scripts to work with bluez-libs<=2.7 and bluez-libs=2.8. PLEASE DON'T CHANGE the ebuild name, ( like the last time ) but delete the old ebuilds. The new name is kdebluetooth-0.0.date so when we'll release version 1.0 of kdebluetooth this will be upgraded without any problem. The snapshot is here: http://www.webalice.it/simone.gotti/kdebluetooth-0.0.20040715.tar.bz2 The ebuild is here: http://www.webalice.it/simone.gotti/kdebluetooth-0.0.20040715-ebuild.tar.bz2 Please Please merge. (or give me a CVS access to the portage tree :D)
Worked for me, thanks! Please add it to the portage tree!
why isnt the new version in portage yet?
>why isnt the new version in portage yet? Short of devs and time. Committed :)
Thanks a lot for the commit! I've noticed that also appeared a strange ebuild called: kdebluetooth-20050000.ebuild This will block the right ebuild. Can you remove it?
Sorry, again after removing the kdebluetooth-20050000 strange ebuild, can you also add the latest ebuild it was 20040715 that I added in the Comment #1. This is the right ebuild that will correct all the bluez problems. Thanks.
>I've noticed that also appeared a strange ebuild called: kdebluetooth-20050000.ebuild The problem is that Portage doesn't has a facility to reflect chnges in version numbering. User who have kdebluetooth-2004* installed won't notice the change to kdebluetooth-0.0.* since 0 < 2004. As noted in the error message, I'll remove '2005' in two weeks. Admitted - it's an ugly hack. >20040715 that I added in the Comment #1 Overlooked it, committed :)
Thanks again! I was thinking that removing all the ebuilds starting with 2004 and using only ebuild starting with 0.0.2004 portage will force the (false) downgrade. I've tried it using also the -U flag and it worked. # emerge -Upv kdebluetooth >>> --upgradeonly implies --update... adding --update to options. These are the packages that I would merge, in order: Calculating dependencies ...done! [ebuild UD] net-wireless/kdebluetooth-0.0.20040625 [20040308] +arts -debug 0 kB For this reason I was thinking that the 2005 ebuild wasn't needed. Probably there's another reason. I'm just curious.
>I was thinking that removing all the ebuilds starting with 2004 and using only ebuild starting with 0.0.2004 portage will force the (false) downgrade. Imho this won't work, if you have a '2004' ebuild installed already, but I may be wrong. Nevertheless, the '2005' ebuild doesn't harm. >I've tried it using also the -U flag and it worked. _Don't_ use -U. It can break your system and is deprecated!! Refer to `man portage` for a better solution.
> Imho this won't work, if you have a '2004' ebuild installed already, but I may be wrong. Nevertheless, the '2005' ebuild doesn't harm. Ok, On my system it workes but like you've said it doesn't harm :) >_Don't_ use -U. It can break your system and is deprecated!! Refer to `man portage` for a better solution. Yes I know, it was only a more strong demostration.
