Bug 135870 – net-misc/tightvnc-1.3_alpha7 depends on x11-misc/imake

• Product: Gentoo Linux
• Status: RESOLVED DUPLICATE

[Description @4u 2006-06-07 01:39:08 UTC]

net-misc/tightvnc-1.3_alpha7 and probably all ebuilds >=net-misc/tightvnc-1.3 depend on x11-misc/imake (Modular X.org which is -at least for me- already stable) which is currently in the testing branch.

Without imake the ebuild fails with the following error:
/usr/portage/net-misc/tightvnc/tightvnc-1.3_alpha7.ebuild: line 64: xmkmf: command not found

!!! ERROR: net-misc/tightvnc-1.3_alpha7 failed.
Call stack:
  ebuild.sh, line 1531:   Called dyn_compile
  ebuild.sh, line 931:   Called src_compile
  tightvnc-1.3_alpha7.ebuild, line 64:   Called die

You can circumvent this problem by installing imake manually: emerge --oneshot imake (with --oneshot the ebuild will be uninstalled again when the package is no longer in use).

Severity is "major" IMHO but not "blocker" because the Modular X.org is still not the default X-Server for Gentoo.

[Comment 1 Jakub Moc (RETIRED) 2006-06-07 01:40:44 UTC]

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 131350 ***

[Comment 2 @4u 2006-06-07 01:55:20 UTC]

One addition:
This bug report is similar to http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=122649 but that one doesn't make sense. Why is the status "WORKSFORME" when the latest post says that it doesn't work "This doesn't work for me.".

[Comment 3 @4u 2006-06-07 01:59:45 UTC]

Sorry, Jakub Moc, but I will reopen it - these bug reports are similar but for different versions. Another problem is that the other bug report doesn't make sense as written in my first addition.

[Comment 4 Jakub Moc (RETIRED) 2006-06-07 02:08:24 UTC]

Irrelevant, the dependency is there, check the ebuild. If you don't like it and want a real solution, file a bug to have >=virtual/x11-7.0 removed from portage.

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 131350 ***

[Comment 5 @4u 2006-06-07 02:11:56 UTC]

I'm sorry - my fault. You were right Jakub. It looked like you "duplicated it" with #122649. I had too many tabs open here ^^" That's a way painful - erm. I wanted to duplicate it myself right now.

Why are there two meta ebuilds for the Modular X.org?! I'm running Gentoo and the Modular X.org for a long time now - but I never saw double and triple meta builds ...

[Comment 6 Jakub Moc (RETIRED) 2006-06-07 02:19:55 UTC]

(In reply to comment #5)
> Why are there two meta ebuilds for the Modular X.org?! I'm running Gentoo and
> the Modular X.org for a long time now - but I never saw double and triple meta
> builds ...

virtual/x11 is not a metabuild in strict sense, it's a 'new style' virtual (see 
http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/glep/glep-0037.html). Unfortunately, virtuals have never been meant to hide bugs in ebuilds, so it now looks more like a metabuild, unfortunately. 

It's hiding breakage in ebuilds that are not ported for modular X. The side effect is that dependencies like X? ( || ( foo bar baz ) virtual/x11 ) fail once virtual/x11 gets emerged by one of those broken ebuilds, because the dependency is already satisfied by virtual/x11. If that virtual doesn't depend on either of foo bar baz, then the dependency doesn't get emerge and a perfectly valid ebuild without any missing dependencies fails.

As said, the real problem is >=virtual/x11-7. Either file a new bug about it or  (preferably) send an email to gentoo-dev mailing list about this problem. Hiding breakage is not a sane solution for me either.

[Comment 7 @4u 2006-06-07 02:49:21 UTC]

I'll send a mail to the list refering to this tracker.