Summary: | gnome-extra/gnome-system-monitor-2.28.2-r1 failed to compile (cannot find -lxcb-aux -lxcb-event -lxcb-atom) | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | Gentoo Linux | Reporter: | Marijn Schouten (RETIRED) <hkbst> |
Component: | [OLD] GNOME | Assignee: | Gentoo Linux Gnome Desktop Team <gnome> |
Status: | RESOLVED INVALID | ||
Severity: | normal | CC: | covici, crazycasta, jreidthompson, m.unarist, Martin.vGagern, naota, roland.schnabel, vanabee |
Priority: | Normal | ||
Version: | unspecified | ||
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Package list: | Runtime testing required: | --- | |
Attachments: | build log |
Description
Marijn Schouten (RETIRED)
![]() What is you xcb-util version? All xcb-util packages are at version 0.3.8: x11-libs/xcb-util{*}-0.3.8 Please rebuild xcb-utils after running through as much packages as possible with revdep-rebuild. From irc discussions, it looks like xcb links to itself and/or pollutes some la files which ends up in these weird problems. *** Bug 365235 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** All xcb-util packages are at version 0.3.8: x11-libs/xcb-util{*}-0.3.8 Did you run revdep-rebuild? Did it recompiled everything or some packages failed? All xcb-util packages are at version 0.3.8: x11-libs/xcb-util{*}-0.3.8 Running revdep-rebuild recompiled some gnome packages and now I could also compile gnome-system-monitor fine. Thanks. This was invalid then *** Bug 366803 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** *** Bug 371253 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** simple command "revdep-rebuild" help me to solve the problem, thnx *** Bug 372673 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** *** Bug 373355 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** (In reply to comment #14) > *** Bug 373355 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** As stated in that report, for me the problem came from a broken libtool file belonging to libwnck. My solution was remerging libwnck. The ebuild dropped its libtool file without a change in revision number. A proper solution at least to my incarnation of this bug here would be a revbump of that library together with an adjusted dependency on xfce4-panel and other affected ebuilds. Not sure whether this is true for the original report and the other duplicates. If so, please adjust all involved packages accordingly. If not, please un-dup my report unless you consider my proposed solution to be a bad idea. As for this report here being invalid: I thought portage-2.2 with its preserved-rebuild feature was going to obsolete revdep-rebuild. Therefore I would love to see the proper solution enacted, as it would keep users from unneccessarily breaking their system. *** Bug 375931 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** *** Bug 365701 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** I wonder why preserved-rebuild did not catch this -- I had to run revdep-rebuild, which I have hardly used at all since the portage 2 series. Should we file a bug against portage? (In reply to comment #15) > (In reply to comment #14) > > *** Bug 373355 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** > As stated in that report, for me the problem came from a broken libtool file > belonging to libwnck. My solution was remerging libwnck. The ebuild dropped its > libtool file without a change in revision number. A proper solution at least to > my incarnation of this bug here would be a revbump of that library together > with an adjusted dependency on xfce4-panel and other affected ebuilds. > Not sure whether this is true for the original report and the other duplicates. > If so, please adjust all involved packages accordingly. If not, please un-dup > my report unless you consider my proposed solution to be a bad idea. > As for this report here being invalid: I thought portage-2.2 with its > preserved-rebuild feature was going to obsolete revdep-rebuild. Therefore I > would love to see the proper solution enacted, as it would keep users from > unneccessarily breaking their system. (In reply to comment #18) > Should we file a bug against portage? Probably voting for bug #287318 is better, as it appears to cover this. |