| Summary: | app-text/ghostscript-gpl-9.04-r4 - elibtoolize: We've already been run in this tree; you should avoid this if possible (perhaps by filing a bug) | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | Gentoo Linux | Reporter: | René Berber <r.berber> |
| Component: | [OLD] Printing | Assignee: | Printing Team <printing> |
| Status: | RESOLVED FIXED | ||
| Severity: | normal | CC: | saint.snit, toralf |
| Priority: | Normal | ||
| Version: | unspecified | ||
| Hardware: | AMD64 | ||
| OS: | Linux | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Package list: | Runtime testing required: | --- | |
| Attachments: |
Log file of the build
Zipped build logs for the 3 builds |
||
|
Description
René Berber
2011-11-23 23:22:27 UTC
Set PORT_LOGDIR to some convenient directory and run the emerge again. The output should mention the name of the build log. Attach that build log to this bug report. Created attachment 293743 [details]
Log file of the build
Log attached.
I just hit this bug too. (René, for some reason your attachment is gzipped twice--a gzip of a gzip of the build log.) The details of your build look to be the same as mine: the install says "Running elibtoolize in: ghostscript-9.04/jbig2dec/" twice. The first time, some patches are successfully applied; the second time, the "We've already been run in this tree" message is generated (which is then repeated after the install completes, cryptic out of context). In my case at least, ghostscript-gpl-9.04-r4 appears to have installed properly and runs without error (well, other than not being able to find some font files, which I'm sure is unrelated to this bug) on an over-900-page document. (In reply to comment #3) > In my case at least, ghostscript-gpl-9.04-r4 appears to have installed properly > and runs without error (well, other than not being able to find some font > files, which I'm sure is unrelated to this bug) on an over-900-page document. I agree, it installed fine, my report originally had a title just saying the message was unusual, and a lower priority, but it was changed (I also received a message that the log file type was changed, perhaps that was when it was compressed again). Created attachment 295269 [details]
Zipped build logs for the 3 builds
Contents of zipfile...
dev-libs:nspr-4.8.9:20111209-045648.log
www-client:firefox-7.0.1-r1:20111209-052101.log
x11-libs:gdk-pixbuf-2.24.0-r1:20111209-050817.log
Gack; I forgot to press "Save Changes" on comments. Take 2... I'm seeing the same warning message on on other builds dev-libs:nspr-4.8.9 www-client:firefox-7.0.1-r1 x11-libs:gdk-pixbuf-2.24.0-r1 The build logs are attached in my previous message Unusual stuff about my setup 1) I start off USE with "-*" and add in flags as necessary 2) I'm experimenting running busybox's mdev, and I've unmerged udev. So far so good. [e521][root][~] emerge --info Portage 2.1.10.11 (default/linux/x86/10.0/desktop, gcc-4.5.3, glibc-2.12.2-r0, 3.0.6-gentoo i686) ================================================================= System uname: Linux-3.0.6-gentoo-i686-AMD_Athlon-tm-_64_Processor_3200+-with-gentoo-2.0.3 Timestamp of tree: Sat, 03 Dec 2011 00:15:01 +0000 app-shells/bash: 4.1_p9 dev-lang/python: 2.7.2-r3, 3.1.4-r3 dev-util/pkgconfig: 0.26 sys-apps/baselayout: 2.0.3 sys-apps/openrc: 0.9.4 sys-apps/sandbox: 2.5 sys-devel/autoconf: 2.13, 2.68 sys-devel/automake: 1.11.1 sys-devel/binutils: 2.21.1-r1 sys-devel/gcc: 4.5.3-r1 sys-devel/gcc-config: 1.4.1-r1 sys-devel/libtool: 2.4-r1 sys-devel/make: 3.82-r1 sys-kernel/linux-headers: 2.6.39 (virtual/os-headers) sys-libs/glibc: 2.12.2 Repositories: gentoo x-portage ACCEPT_KEYWORDS="x86" ACCEPT_LICENSE="*" CBUILD="i686-pc-linux-gnu" CFLAGS="-O2 -march=native -mfpmath=sse -fomit-frame-pointer -pipe" CHOST="i686-pc-linux-gnu" CONFIG_PROTECT="/etc" CONFIG_PROTECT_MASK="/etc/ca-certificates.conf /etc/env.d /etc/fonts/fonts.conf /etc/gconf /etc/gentoo-release /etc/revdep-rebuild /etc/sandbox.d /etc/terminfo" CXXFLAGS="-O2 -march=native -mfpmath=sse -fomit-frame-pointer -pipe" DISTDIR="/usr/portage/distfiles" EMERGE_DEFAULT_OPTS="--autounmask=n" FEATURES="assume-digests binpkg-logs distlocks ebuild-locks fixlafiles fixpackages news parallel-fetch protect-owned sandbox sfperms strict unknown-features-warn unmerge-logs unmerge-orphans userfetch" FFLAGS="" GENTOO_MIRRORS="ftp://mirror.csclub.uwaterloo.ca/gentoo-distfiles/ http://gentoo.netnitco.net" LDFLAGS="-Wl,-O1 -Wl,--as-needed" LINGUAS="en en_US" MAKEOPTS="-j1" PKGDIR="/usr/portage/packages" PORTAGE_CONFIGROOT="/" PORTAGE_RSYNC_OPTS="--recursive --links --safe-links --perms --times --compress --force --whole-file --delete --stats --timeout=180 --exclude=/distfiles --exclude=/local --exclude=/packages" PORTAGE_TMPDIR="/var/tmp" PORTDIR="/usr/portage" PORTDIR_OVERLAY="/usr/local/portage" SYNC="rsync://rsync.namerica.gentoo.org/gentoo-portage" USE="X a52 aac bzip2 cxx dga dri exif ffmpeg flac fortran gallium gif intel jpeg mmx mng mp3 mpeg nptl nptlonly nsplugin offensive ogg opengl png posix sse sse2 ssse3 theora threads tiff truetype vim-syntax vorbis win32codecs wmf x86 xcomposite xpm xv xvid zlib" ALSA_PCM_PLUGINS="adpcm alaw copy dmix dshare dsnoop empty extplug file hooks iec958 ioplug ladspa lfloat linear meter mulaw multi null plug rate route share shm softvol asym" ELIBC="glibc" INPUT_DEVICES="keyboard mouse" KERNEL="linux" LINGUAS="en en_US" USERLAND="GNU" VIDEO_CARDS="nouveau" Unset: CPPFLAGS, CTARGET, INSTALL_MASK, LANG, LC_ALL, PORTAGE_BUNZIP2_COMMAND, PORTAGE_COMPRESS, PORTAGE_COMPRESS_FLAGS, PORTAGE_RSYNC_EXTRA_OPTS I'm also getting this message on quite a lot of packages. Didn't try to put PORTAGE_TMPDIR on hd yet, but I like to think that 4GB of RAM plus 4GB of swap have to be sufficient for portage to manage. (In reply to comment #7) > I'm also getting this message on quite a lot of packages. Then report those problems for each package, not here. Otherwise your comments are not going to be read by support people. > Didn't try to put > PORTAGE_TMPDIR on hd yet, but I like to think that 4GB of RAM plus 4GB of swap > have to be sufficient for portage to manage. Memory has nothing to do with the problem. The root of the problem is somebody making bad .ebuild files, the message is just a warning, the packages themselves should build and install correctly. *** Bug 395511 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** Thanks, fixed in -r5. |
