Summary: | [gnome-overlay] app-pda/gtkpod-2.1.x dev-util/anjuta-3.0.0 - configure: error: *** No package 'libanjuta-1.0' found | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | Gentoo Linux | Reporter: | Alex Ermakov <fufler> |
Component: | Current packages | Assignee: | Olivier Crete (RETIRED) <tester> |
Status: | RESOLVED FIXED | ||
Severity: | normal | CC: | gnome, pda |
Priority: | Normal | ||
Version: | unspecified | ||
Hardware: | AMD64 | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Package list: | Runtime testing required: | --- | |
Bug Depends on: | 371719 | ||
Bug Blocks: | 353071 | ||
Attachments: |
Complete build log
config.log |
Description
Alex Ermakov
2011-04-07 16:04:24 UTC
Created attachment 268873 [details]
Complete build log
!!! Please attach the following file when seeking support: !!! /var/tmp/portage/app-pda/gtkpod-2.0.0/work/gtkpod-2.0.0/config.log Created attachment 268895 [details]
config.log
We might need slotted dev-util/anjuta here. There is little chance we will slot any application unless they were meant to be. It is not the case for anjuta afaik, but I will be able to tell you more once I've reviewed this ebuild. (In reply to comment #5) > There is little chance we will slot any application unless they were meant to > be. It is not the case for anjuta afaik, but I will be able to tell you more > once I've reviewed this ebuild. The shared library w/ headers from anjuta should be sufficient, skipping the application part of it I guess the short term solution is twofold: - Add a =anjuta-2* to gtkpod - If anjuta 3 reaches the main tree before a compatible version of gtkpod is release, then p.mask gtkpod 2.0 until it happens. (In reply to comment #7) > I guess the short term solution is twofold: > > - Add a =anjuta-2* to gtkpod Already done to prevent unslotted anjuta hitting the tree. > - If anjuta 3 reaches the main tree before a compatible version of gtkpod is > release, then p.mask gtkpod 2.0 until it happens. ... or we could have dev-libs/libanjuta from anjuta-2 for gtkpod-2.0.0, knowing gtkpod's release cycle the next one will be out sometime 2012. From upstream HOMEPAGE: -- start -- NEWS gtkpod 2.0.2 and 2.1.0 unstable builds These builds represent the current transition between gtk2 and gtk3. Since anjuta has been migrated to gtk3 so gtkpod has done the same. However, not all distros have yet completed this migration so these builds are intended to meet the requirements of gtk2 and gtk3. Unsurprisingly, 2.0.2 represents a continuation of the gtk2 code stream while 2.1.0 migrates to the gtk3 and libanjuta3 platform. New features will be targeted at 2.1.0 but where possible they will be backported to 2.0.2. -- end -- So gtkpod-2.1.0 should be added to tree at the same time with anjuta-3 + 17 Sep 2011; Samuli Suominen <ssuominen@gentoo.org> package.mask: + Insert app-pda/gtkpod >= 2.1.0 mask next to required dev-util/anjuta >= 3 + dependency. + +*gtkpod-2.1.0 (17 Sep 2011) + + 17 Sep 2011; Samuli Suominen <ssuominen@gentoo.org> +gtkpod-2.1.0.ebuild: + Version bump wrt #362461 by Alex Ermakov I still find it appaling that you have an entire IDE as dependancy for an application. I see it requires only libanjuta, but that should be mostly for internal features of anjuta. I understand that gtkpod uses some features of libanjuta for its GUI, but that's just redicilous imo. (In reply to comment #11) > I still find it appaling that you have an entire IDE as dependancy for an > application. > > I see it requires only libanjuta, but that should be mostly for internal > features of anjuta. I understand that gtkpod uses some features of libanjuta > for its GUI, but that's just redicilous imo. Then you should convince GNOME upstream at http://bugzilla.gnome.org/ to split libanjuta into it's own package if our gnome@ maintainers are not willing to the split at downstream level. They are CC'd in this bug, so they might see this, but I'd propably file new bugs to both bugzillas... The Gentoo bug having link in the "See also: " field to the upstrema bug. (In reply to comment #11) > I still find it appaling that you have an entire IDE as dependancy for an > application. I am not opposed to splitting libanjuta out of anjuta into a separate package. However, since gtkpod is currently the only package in portage that needs libanjuta, I consider splitting anjuta to be a very low-priority project. In other words, it will not get done until somebody else who is interested - like you! - writes the necessary patches. (In reply to comment #13) > (In reply to comment #11) > > I still find it appaling that you have an entire IDE as dependancy for an > > application. > > I am not opposed to splitting libanjuta out of anjuta into a separate > package. However, since gtkpod is currently the only package in portage that > needs libanjuta, I consider splitting anjuta to be a very low-priority > project. In other words, it will not get done until somebody else who is > interested - like you! - writes the necessary patches. indeed. gtkpod is left for the pda@ team to maintain, and I don't even own *any* ipod, ipad, iwhatever... so my motivation on writing anything is zero unless someone buys me an ipod. :) |