ver-0.10.18 came out in February. Current version in portage is 0.10.17 which is now 8months old. Reproducible: Always Steps to Reproduce: 1.eix gst-python 2. 3.
Created attachment 234287 [details, diff] continuing the lazy patch from 0.10.9 This patch seems to be from 0.10.9 so i've edited it little just so the contents get added cleanly
Created attachment 234289 [details] gst-python-0.10.18.ebuild A near copy of 0.10.17
The ebuild fails at the install section: >>> Completed installing gst-python-0.10.18 into /var/tmp/portage/dev-python/gst-python-0.10.18/image/ strip: x86_64-pc-linux-gnu-strip --strip-unneeded -R .comment usr/lib64/gstreamer-0.10/libgstpython.so usr/lib64/python2.6/site-packages/gstoption.so usr/lib64/python2.6/site-packages/gst-0.10/gst/tag.so usr/lib64/python2.6/site-packages/gst-0.10/gst/video.so usr/lib64/python2.6/site-packages/gst-0.10/gst/audio.so usr/lib64/python2.6/site-packages/gst-0.10/gst/pbutils.so usr/lib64/python2.6/site-packages/gst-0.10/gst/interfaces.so usr/lib64/python2.6/site-packages/gst-0.10/gst/_gst.so * QA Notice: Package has poor programming practices which may compile * fine but exhibit random runtime failures. * tag.c:298: warning: implicit declaration of function 'gst_tag_get_language_code_iso_639_2B' * tag.c:316: warning: implicit declaration of function 'gst_tag_get_language_code_iso_639_2T' * * QA Notice: Package has poor programming practices which may compile * but will almost certainly crash on 64bit architectures. * * Function `gst_tag_get_language_code_iso_639_2B' implicitly converted to pointer at tag.c:298 * Function `gst_tag_get_language_code_iso_639_2T' implicitly converted to pointer at tag.c:316 * * Please file a bug about this at http://bugs.gentoo.org/ * with the maintaining herd of the package. * * ERROR: dev-python/gst-python-0.10.18 failed: * install aborted due to poor programming practices shown above
Created attachment 234303 [details] gst-python-0.10.18.ebuild rev2 This works for me on amd64
Cleaned up the current ebuild for EAPI=3 and committed. Didn't need to update the lazy patch and did not see the error in comment #3.