Summary: | x11-libs/openmotif-2.3.3: "installation of demos failed" with USE="examples jpeg png -xft" | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | Gentoo Linux | Reporter: | Björn Michaelsen <bjoern.michaelsen> |
Component: | New packages | Assignee: | Ulrich Müller <ulm> |
Status: | RESOLVED DUPLICATE | ||
Severity: | normal | CC: | oas |
Priority: | High | Keywords: | REGRESSION |
Version: | unspecified | Flags: | ulm:
Bugday+
|
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Package list: | Runtime testing required: | --- |
Description
Björn Michaelsen
2010-04-01 23:07:19 UTC
*** Bug 312723 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** Your report does not include the actual gcc call that fails, probably because you have -j in MAKEOPTS and/or missed some lines during copy/paste. Google suggests to add -fno-strict-aliasing to CFLAGS. ../../../clients/uil/uil -o hellomotif.uid hellomotif.uil -I./../../../clients/uil -I../../../clients/uil Severe: internal error - submit defect report make[2]: *** [hellomotif.uid] Error 1 ^--- Thats the offending command. It does not fail while compiling with gcc, but when running the "uil" command (a compiler that is part of openmotif itself). Likely the error only happens with USE="doc" I can reproduce the problem only with one particular combination of USE flags, namely "examples jpeg png -xft". The problem didn't exist with openmotif-2.3.2-r2. (In reply to comment #3) > Likely the error only happens with USE="doc" That doesn't make any difference, it fails for me with both "doc" and "-doc". I've looked at the problem and I must admit that I'm currently at a loss. Some findings: - Difference between 2.3.2 and 2.3.3 is that 2.3.2 used yacc to generate the uil parser, while 2.3.3 uses "bison -y". - The problem occurs only within the sandbox environment, i.e. with LD_PRELOAD=libsandbox.so. Running make in demos/programs/hellomotif/ outside of the sandbox works just fine. - I don't know why the behaviour should depend on the jpeg and png USE flags. Any ideas? Is this still an issue with sandbox-2.3? (In reply to comment #6) > Is this still an issue with sandbox-2.3? No reply, and I cannot reproduce the problem any more. Please reopen if this is still an issue. *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 355795 *** |