***** libmcal-0.7-fpic.patch ***** ================================== PATCH COMMAND: patch -p0 -g0 < /usr/portage/dev-libs/libmcal/files/libmcal-0.7-fpic.patch ================================== patching file Makefile.in can't find file to patch at input line 33 Perhaps you used the wrong -p or --strip option? The text leading up to this was: -------------------------- |--- mstore/Makefile.old 2004-08-08 16:37:13.641537544 +0100 |+++ mstore/Makefile 2004-08-08 16:37:35.473218624 +0100 -------------------------- No file to patch. Skipping patch. 1 out of 1 hunk ignored can't find file to patch at input line 46 Perhaps you used the wrong -p or --strip option? The text leading up to this was: -------------------------- |--- icap/Makefile.old 2004-08-08 16:38:58.353618888 +0100 |+++ icap/Makefile 2004-08-08 16:39:18.841504256 +0100 -------------------------- No file to patch. Skipping patch. 1 out of 1 hunk ignored ================================== PATCH COMMAND: patch -p1 -g0 < /usr/portage/dev-libs/libmcal/files/libmcal-0.7-fpic.patch ================================== missing header for unified diff at line 3 of patch can't find file to patch at input line 3 Perhaps you used the wrong -p or --strip option? The text leading up to this was: -------------------------- |--- Makefile.in 2003-11-27 15:46:46.887752568 +0000 |+++ Makefile.in 2003-11-27 16:14:17.325847840 +0000 -------------------------- No file to patch. Skipping patch. 3 out of 3 hunks ignored can't find file to patch at input line 33 Perhaps you used the wrong -p or --strip option? The text leading up to this was: -------------------------- |--- mstore/Makefile.old 2004-08-08 16:37:13.641537544 +0100 |+++ mstore/Makefile 2004-08-08 16:37:35.473218624 +0100 -------------------------- No file to patch. Skipping patch. 1 out of 1 hunk ignored can't find file to patch at input line 46 Perhaps you used the wrong -p or --strip option? The text leading up to this was: -------------------------- |--- icap/Makefile.old 2004-08-08 16:38:58.353618888 +0100 |+++ icap/Makefile 2004-08-08 16:39:18.841504256 +0100 -------------------------- No file to patch. Skipping patch. 1 out of 1 hunk ignored ================================== PATCH COMMAND: patch -p2 -g0 < /usr/portage/dev-libs/libmcal/files/libmcal-0.7-fpic.patch ================================== missing header for unified diff at line 3 of patch can't find file to patch at input line 3 Perhaps you used the wrong -p or --strip option? The text leading up to this was: -------------------------- |--- Makefile.in 2003-11-27 15:46:46.887752568 +0000 |+++ Makefile.in 2003-11-27 16:14:17.325847840 +0000 -------------------------- No file to patch. Skipping patch. 3 out of 3 hunks ignored missing header for unified diff at line 33 of patch can't find file to patch at input line 33 Perhaps you used the wrong -p or --strip option? The text leading up to this was: -------------------------- |--- mstore/Makefile.old 2004-08-08 16:37:13.641537544 +0100 |+++ mstore/Makefile 2004-08-08 16:37:35.473218624 +0100 -------------------------- No file to patch. Skipping patch. 1 out of 1 hunk ignored missing header for unified diff at line 46 of patch can't find file to patch at input line 46 Perhaps you used the wrong -p or --strip option? The text leading up to this was: -------------------------- |--- icap/Makefile.old 2004-08-08 16:38:58.353618888 +0100 |+++ icap/Makefile 2004-08-08 16:39:18.841504256 +0100 -------------------------- No file to patch. Skipping patch. 1 out of 1 hunk ignored ================================== PATCH COMMAND: patch -p4 -g0 < /usr/portage/dev-libs/libmcal/files/libmcal-0.7-fpic.patch ================================== missing header for unified diff at line 3 of patch can't find file to patch at input line 3 Perhaps you used the wrong -p or --strip option? The text leading up to this was: -------------------------- |--- Makefile.in 2003-11-27 15:46:46.887752568 +0000 |+++ Makefile.in 2003-11-27 16:14:17.325847840 +0000 -------------------------- No file to patch. Skipping patch. 3 out of 3 hunks ignored missing header for unified diff at line 33 of patch can't find file to patch at input line 33 Perhaps you used the wrong -p or --strip option? The text leading up to this was: -------------------------- |--- mstore/Makefile.old 2004-08-08 16:37:13.641537544 +0100 |+++ mstore/Makefile 2004-08-08 16:37:35.473218624 +0100 -------------------------- No file to patch. Skipping patch. 1 out of 1 hunk ignored missing header for unified diff at line 46 of patch can't find file to patch at input line 46 Perhaps you used the wrong -p or --strip option? The text leading up to this was: -------------------------- |--- icap/Makefile.old 2004-08-08 16:38:58.353618888 +0100 |+++ icap/Makefile 2004-08-08 16:39:18.841504256 +0100 -------------------------- No file to patch. Skipping patch. 1 out of 1 hunk ignored Reproducible: Always Steps to Reproduce: 1. emerge mod_php 2. Actual Results: 100%[=====================================================>] 49,039 316.31K/s 11:20:22 (316.22 KB/s) - `/usr/portage/distfiles/libmcal-0.7.tar.gz' saved [49039/49039] >>> md5 src_uri ;-) libmcal-0.7.tar.gz >>> Unpacking source... >>> Unpacking libmcal-0.7.tar.gz to /var/tmp/portage/libmcal-0.7-r1/work * Applying libmcal-0.7-fpic.patch... * Failed Patch: libmcal-0.7-fpic.patch! * * Include in your bugreport the contents of: * * /var/tmp/portage/libmcal-0.7-r1/temp/libmcal-0.7-fpic.patch-4366.out !!! ERROR: dev-libs/libmcal-0.7-r1 failed. !!! Function epatch, Line 322, Exitcode 0 !!! Failed Patch: libmcal-0.7-fpic.patch! Any idea ?
yeah, I have an idea. no clue who brought this into portage tree, but he hasn't tested it at all. the libmcal-0.7-r1.ebuild and libmcal-0.7-r2.ebuild are broken (or the patch they incorporate - not sure about what of both is broken more)
Ok, there's a logical explanation for this :) What happened is that the libmcal project split up the drivers into a separate tar.gz. The non-stable-keyworded ebuild version, libmcal-0.7-r2 has been updated to reflect this change, but has not been marked stable yet. Unfortunately, all the older versions are broken now. However, even if the -r2 version was marked stable, it's still broken. The order of commands in src_unpack() is wrong. We need to mark this -r2 version stable ASAP. I've attached a patch for the ebuild.
Created attachment 37106 [details, diff] libmcal-0.7-r2.ebuild.patch
isn't there a good reason for the devs to split it? shouldn't we also have two seperate ebuilds? and shouldn't the -r1 ebuild be removed asap? (btw the plain 0.7 ebuild still works just fine)
and another note. while libmcal is still at 0.7, development of libmcal drivers has reached 0.9 in the meanwhile. so this sounds like another good reason for two seperate ebuilds to me...
robmoss: I take a severe view of developers that break packages I maintain. This shows a very bad lack of testing on your part. I'm a bit short on time at the moment, so I'm pushing this to you to fix what you broke. I've got no problem with other developers changing packages I maintain, provided they don't break them. everybody else: splitting it up doesn't make any sense, due to the build system, and it's untouched by upstream for more than 18 months now.
Tried to apply the patch using 'cd /usr/portage/dev-libs/libmcal && patch -p0 <libmcal-0.7-r2.ebuild.patch', but I still get the error. The patch applied successfully. Any ideas?
I would modify the patch to: --- libmcal-0.7-r2.ebuild2004-08-07 18:06:44.000000000 -0400 +++ libmcal-0.7-r2.ebuild2004-08-09 13:28:52.637433366 -0400 @@ -22,8 +22,10 @@ src_unpack() { unpack ${A} cd ${S} +mv ${WORKDIR}/mcal-drivers/* ${S}/ epatch ${FILESDIR}/${P}-fpic.patch -mv ${S}/../mcal-drivers/* ${S}/ einfo "Using /var/spool/calendar instead of /var/calendar" for i in FAQ-MCAL HOW-TO-MCAL mstore/mstore.c mstore/README mstore/Changelog; do sed -e 's|/var/calendar|/var/spool/calendar|g' -i ${i} (but besides this cosmetic change it works like a charm for me and things emerge fine). btw... if the patched ebuild should make it into portage tree, make sure to remove the broken dev-libs/libmcal-0.7-r1 ebuild (that still relied on the "unsplit" sources)
I just used the patch because I was having problems with libmcal too and it works like a charm, i don't know about anybody else but i would give it the go to be put into portage and get -r1 out of there
Created attachment 37871 [details] Build log Okay. I'm massively confused. This is the build log on AMD64. To cut a short story even shorter, it works. I can't reproduce the problems others are having. All the updated patch does is modify some stuff that gets unpacked from the tarball. If anyone can shed any light on this I'd be most grateful. For now I'll have a look at the patched ebuild and see what difference it makes. But I have no idea why this breaks for others when it doesn't break for me.
EDIT: No, sorry, it's my fault. I obviously haven't got the hang of this CVS business yet. My ebuild has the patch at the end of src_unpack; I thought I'd uploaded the new ebuild but obviously not. I also thought I'd got rid of the overlay copy, but obviously not. Fixing. Sorry again.
Fixed in CVS. Hopefully I won't do anything that stupid again...
*** Bug 61583 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
