Bug 300846 – gnome-extra/gnome-power-manager does not compile with libXext 1.1.1

• Product: Gentoo Linux
• Status: RESOLVED FIXED

[Description Maxim Koltsov (RETIRED) 2010-01-13 15:25:47 UTC]

I need a xorg-server-1.7, so i have to use libXext 1.1.1 I read, that in this version of libXext file X11/extensions/dpmsstr.h was split into dpmsconst.h and dpmsproto.h But gnome-power-manager 2.21.1 and 2.24.4 still needs dpmsstr.h and it does not compile on my system

Reproducible: Always

Steps to Reproduce:
1.Unmask and install xorg-server-1.7.3.901 and some its dependencies, such as libXext
2.emerge -av gnome

Actual Results:  
Error message like this:
......
X11/extensions/dpmsstr.h: No such file or directory
.....
Compile failed

Expected Results:  
Good compilation

I created a workaround for this. Just put attached file to /usr/include/X11/extensions.
I think you need to specify maximal libXext version, that gnome power-manager can compile with, in gnome-power-manager`s ebuild.

[Comment 1 Maxim Koltsov (RETIRED) 2010-01-13 15:28:50 UTC]

Created attachment 216362 [details]
workaround

This file is a fake dpmsstr.h that actually includes dpmsconst.h and dpmsproto.h

[Comment 2 Romain Perier (RETIRED) 2010-01-15 08:55:44 UTC]

Please attach full build.log, thanks in advance

[Comment 3 Maxim Koltsov (RETIRED) 2010-01-15 15:43:57 UTC]

Created attachment 216608 [details]
Full build log

This is the full build log of gnome-power-manager-2.21.1
Now I don`t have this bug because i use my workaround, but it`s still remaining in gnome-power-manager`s source code.

[Comment 4 Rémi Cardona (RETIRED) 2010-01-19 00:43:24 UTC]

You're mixing stable and unstable packages... Sorry, we can't fix all those combinations.

Thanks

[Comment 5 Maxim Koltsov (RETIRED) 2010-01-19 14:12:13 UTC]

(In reply to comment #4)
> You're mixing stable and unstable packages... Sorry, we can't fix all those
> combinations.
> 
> Thanks
> 

I understand, but i advice you to specify in gnome-power-manager`s ebuild that it can`t compile with unstable libXext.

[Comment 6 Rémi Cardona (RETIRED) 2010-01-19 20:53:34 UTC]

(In reply to comment #5)
> I understand, but i advice you to specify in gnome-power-manager`s ebuild that
> it can`t compile with unstable libXext.

We can't as portage doesn't let us specify ranged deps ("I need libXext between versions X.Y and X.W"), maybe we'll see this feature one day but I'm not holding my breath.

In the mean time, all our ebuilds assume users don't mix stable and unstable. If you do, you're on your own.

Thanks

[Comment 7 Peter Volkov (RETIRED) 2010-01-29 10:18:20 UTC]

*** Bug 302557 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

[Comment 8 Hans de Graaff 2010-04-27 08:51:49 UTC]

*** Bug 307393 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

[Comment 9 Hans de Graaff 2010-04-27 08:54:16 UTC]

With xextproto 7.1.1 now stable this has become a problem on fully stable
system. gnome-power-manager 2.22 (stable) and 2.24 (testing) both no longer
compile on a stable system.

gnome-power-manager 2.26 compiles fine, but obviously it brings in the whole
devicekit hoopla.

[Comment 10 Gilles Dartiguelongue (RETIRED) 2010-04-27 09:18:47 UTC]

Isn't that what the following commit was about ?

*gnome-power-manager-2.22.1-r1 (01 Apr 2010)

  01 Apr 2010; Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn <[e-mail]>
  +gnome-power-manager-2.22.1-r1.ebuild,
  +files/gnome-power-manager-2.22.1-xextproto-7.1.patch:
  patch to fix bug #312021

[Comment 11 Pacho Ramos 2010-04-27 12:33:57 UTC]

(In reply to comment #10)
> Isn't that what the following commit was about ?
> 
> *gnome-power-manager-2.22.1-r1 (01 Apr 2010)
> 
>   01 Apr 2010; Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn <[e-mail]>
>   +gnome-power-manager-2.22.1-r1.ebuild,
>   +files/gnome-power-manager-2.22.1-xextproto-7.1.patch:
>   patch to fix bug #312021
> 

Yes, it was fixed for 2.22 series. Maybe we should drop 2.24... or is it needed for anything specific?

[Comment 12 Gilles Dartiguelongue (RETIRED) 2010-04-27 12:43:14 UTC]

(In reply to comment #11)
> Yes, it was fixed for 2.22 series. Maybe we should drop 2.24... or is it needed
> for anything specific?

no, 2.24 and 2.26 can be removed, they failed in so many ways I can't even remember all of them.

[Comment 13 Pacho Ramos 2010-04-27 12:55:46 UTC]

Done, this is solved then, simply stay with 2.22.1-r1 (or try to move ahead bug 309783 to get 2.28 in ppc)