Gentoo Websites Logo
Go to: Gentoo Home Documentation Forums Lists Bugs Planet Store Wiki Get Gentoo!
Bug 2291 - Access violations in GCL build
Summary: Access violations in GCL build
Status: RESOLVED FIXED
Alias: None
Product: Gentoo Linux
Classification: Unclassified
Component: New packages (show other bugs)
Hardware: x86 Linux
: High normal (vote)
Assignee: Seemant Kulleen (RETIRED)
URL:
Whiteboard:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2002-04-30 20:38 UTC by Luke Ravitch
Modified: 2003-02-04 19:42 UTC (History)
0 users

See Also:
Package list:
Runtime testing required: ---


Attachments

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Luke Ravitch 2002-04-30 20:38:50 UTC
The makefile for GCL has the target directory for Emacs lisp hardcoded (instead
of based on $prefix).  This causes an access violation when doing "make install"
into the sandbox.  The info directory also causes the same problem.

This seems to fix the problem...

*** gcl-2.4.0.ebuild.orig       2002-04-30 12:16:41.000000000 -0700
--- gcl-2.4.0.ebuild    2002-04-30 18:39:41.000000000 -0700
***************
*** 29,35 ****
      dodir /usr/share/info
      dodir /usr/share/emacs/site-lisp/gcl
  
!     try make install prefix=${D}/usr MANDIR=${D}/usr/share/man
  
      mv ${D}/usr/lib/${P}/info/* ${D}/usr/share/info
      rm ${D}/usr/share/info/texinfo.tex
--- 29,38 ----
      dodir /usr/share/info
      dodir /usr/share/emacs/site-lisp/gcl
  
!     try make install prefix=${D}/usr MANDIR=${D}/usr/share/man        \
!       EMACS_SITE_LISP=${D}/usr/share/emacs/site-lisp/gcl              \
!       EMACS_DEFAULT_EL=${D}/usr/share/emacs/site-lisp/gcl/default.el  \
!       INFO_DIR=${D}/usr/share/info
  
      mv ${D}/usr/lib/${P}/info/* ${D}/usr/share/info
      rm ${D}/usr/share/info/texinfo.tex
Comment 1 Seemant Kulleen (RETIRED) gentoo-dev 2002-04-30 22:35:32 UTC
It's been a while since you rsync'd hasn't it?  Anything over 24 hours counts as
"a while" here :)

Please emerge --clean rsync and you'll see that this was taken care of a couple
of days ago.
Comment 2 Luke Ravitch 2002-05-01 22:20:08 UTC
Yeah, it might even have been 72 hours ;-)