Summary: | dev-lang/gforth-0.6.2 fails to build | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | Gentoo Linux | Reporter: | Evil Compile Person <bugs> |
Component: | New packages | Assignee: | No maintainer - Look at https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Proxy_Maintainers if you want to take care of it <maintainer-needed> |
Status: | RESOLVED WORKSFORME | ||
Severity: | normal | CC: | treecleaner |
Priority: | High | ||
Version: | unspecified | ||
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Package list: | Runtime testing required: | --- | |
Bug Depends on: | 180918 | ||
Bug Blocks: | 231510 |
Description
Evil Compile Person
2008-06-16 17:25:03 UTC
WORKSFORME. Both 0.6.2{,-r1} compile fine on a stable x86 host. I'm not going to try a ~ARCH toolchain so that very well could be the problem. +/- 0 vote for me. Others? This also fails with USE=emacs (both 0.6.2 and 0.6.2-r1): * Compiling GNU Emacs Elisp files ... /var/tmp/portage/dev-lang/gforth-0.6.2-r1/work/gforth-0.6.2/elc.4697 /var/tmp/portage/dev-lang/gforth-0.6.2-r1/work/gforth-0.6.2 In toplevel form: gforth.el:62:15:Warning: `string-to-int' is an obsolete function (as of Emacs 22.1); use `string-to-number' instead. gforth.el:76:19:Error: Symbol's function definition is void: forth-emacs-older mv: cannot stat `*.elc': No such file or directory /var/tmp/portage/dev-lang/gforth-0.6.2-r1/work/gforth-0.6.2 * batch-byte-compile failed [ !! ] It can be fixed easily, but I don't want to waste my time if the package is going away. (In reply to comment #2) > This also fails with USE=emacs (both 0.6.2 and 0.6.2-r1): I've fixed this, to get it off my table. This doesn't imply that I would want the package to stay. (In reply to comment #3) > (In reply to comment #2) > > This also fails with USE=emacs (both 0.6.2 and 0.6.2-r1): > > I've fixed this, to get it off my table. > This doesn't imply that I would want the package to stay. > Thanks ulm, sorry I have not got around to it yet. This is on my next p.mask round to happen in a couple of days due to many random issues. Also, looking at the version bump in bug 180918, maybe I can save this package. (In reply to comment #4) > Thanks ulm, sorry I have not got around to it yet. This is on my next p.mask > round to happen in a couple of days due to many random issues. Also, looking at > the version bump in bug 180918, maybe I can save this package. Bah, that version bump doesn't look promising. I think it is a fork or something. Anyway, I'm back to undecided about this package. I can't find what is triggering the build failure. It worksforme in a ~amd64 chroot and a x86 host. /me shrugs. I think it will sit here for awhile unless someone else chimes in. And I guess, we resolve this now as WORKSFORME, because I have tested it every way that I can and no one else has voted. (besides ulm and apparently this works enough for him to fix other things with it) |