| Summary: | easychem-0.3.ebuild (New Package) | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | Gentoo Linux | Reporter: | Max Valdez <maxvalde> |
| Component: | Current packages | Assignee: | Gentoo Science Related Packages <sci> |
| Status: | RESOLVED FIXED | ||
| Severity: | enhancement | CC: | pkdawson, ribosome |
| Priority: | High | Keywords: | EBUILD, InVCS |
| Version: | unspecified | ||
| Hardware: | x86 | ||
| OS: | Linux | ||
| URL: | http://easychem.sourceforge.net// | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Package list: | Runtime testing required: | --- | |
| Attachments: |
easychem 0.3.0 ebuild submission
easychem-0.5.ebuild - Updated ebuild metadata.xml easychem-0.5.ebuild - Revised ebuild |
||
|
Description
Max Valdez
2004-01-29 15:07:50 UTC
Created attachment 24601 [details]
easychem 0.3.0 ebuild submission
Might be a good idea to wait a while for the program to mature some, 0.1 was the alpha, 0.2 was the beta and 0.3 is the latest, released Jan. 27, 2004. Created attachment 31885 [details]
easychem-0.5.ebuild - Updated ebuild
- New version
- Added ghostscript and pstoedit dependencies
- Made sure compilation is done with the user's CFLAGS
* Export to enhanced xfig document (using pstoedit) is broken on my systems.
I did an strace and found the following:
gettimeofday({1085319269, 393168}, NULL) = 0
write(3, "5\30\4\0I\2 \4\32\1 \4m\0\"\0;\3\5\0009\0 \4\0\0\0\0\0"..., 1812) =
1812
ioctl(3, FIONREAD, [0]) = 0
poll([{fd=3, events=POLLIN, revents=POLLIN}], 1, -1) = 1
ioctl(3, FIONREAD, [64]) = 0
read(3, "\5\1\363,\10\'P\0F\0\0\0001\1 \4\0\0\0\0\225\3\332\2\32"..., 64) = 64
access("/home/olivier/myoutput.xfig", F_OK) = -1 ENOENT (No such file or
directory)
write(3, "+\30\1\0", 4) = 4
read(3, "\1\2\364,\0\0\0\0\33\1 \4\0\0\0\0\1\0\0\0\6\0\0\0000\251"..., 32) = 32
getpid() = 25051
open("/tmp/easychem_eps.UAWzrO", O_RDWR|O_CREAT|O_EXCL, 0600) = 4
fcntl64(4, F_GETFL) = 0x2 (flags O_RDWR)
fstat64(4, {st_mode=S_IFREG|0600, st_size=0, ...}) = 0
mmap2(NULL, 131072, PROT_READ|PROT_WRITE, MAP_PRIVATE|MAP_ANONYMOUS, -1, 0) =
0x40b3b000
_llseek(4, 0, [0], SEEK_CUR) = 0
time(NULL) = 1085319269
open("/etc/localtime", O_RDONLY) = 5
fstat64(5, {st_mode=S_IFREG|0644, st_size=1252, ...}) = 0
mmap2(NULL, 131072, PROT_READ|PROT_WRITE, MAP_PRIVATE|MAP_ANONYMOUS, -1, 0) =
0x40b5b000
read(5, "TZif\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\4\0\0\0\4\0"..., 131072) =
1252
close(5) = 0
munmap(0x40b5b000, 131072) = 0
uname({sys="Linux", node="ribosome", ...}) = 0
write(4, "%!PS-Adobe-2.0 EPSF-2.0\n%%Title:"..., 7148) = 7148
close(4) = 0
munmap(0x40b3b000, 131072) = 0
pipe([4, 5]) = 0
fork() = 25076
close(5) = 0
wait4(-1, NULL, 0, NULL) = 25076
--- SIGCHLD (Child exited) @ 0 (0) ---
fcntl64(4, F_GETFL) = 0 (flags O_RDONLY)
fstat64(4, {st_mode=S_IFIFO|0600, st_size=0, ...}) = 0
mmap2(NULL, 4096, PROT_READ|PROT_WRITE, MAP_PRIVATE|MAP_ANONYMOUS, -1, 0) =
0x40b3b000
_llseek(4, 0, 0xbfffd2c4, SEEK_CUR) = -1 ESPIPE (Illegal seek)
read(4, "ESP Ghostscript 7.07.1: Unrecove"..., 4096) = 57
Created attachment 31886 [details]
metadata.xml
Assigns to the science herd
The pkg-config build dependency is missing. I wonder where the version numbers in DEPEND come from - it compiles fine with gtk+ 2.4.0, and I wonder if older versions do. As for the external programs invoked, I doubt that exactly these versions are needed. Created attachment 32166 [details]
easychem-0.5.ebuild - Revised ebuild
Added pkgconfig to the dependencies. The version numbers in DEPEND are those
installed on my system, according to the suggestion in /usr/portage/skel.ebuild
(shown below). If I missed something or if this is usually disregarded, please
tell me.
# Build-time dependencies, such as
# ssl? ( >=dev-libs/openssl-0.9.6b )
# >=dev-lang/perl-5.6.1-r1
# It is advisable to use the >= syntax show above, to reflect what you
# had installed on your system when you tested the package. Then
# other users hopefully won't be caught without the right version of
# a dependency.
That's rather strange advice, and I see it's still in the skel.ebuild. While I guess it might be better than no version numbers at all, obviously you wouldn't leave it like that. Is anyone still interested in this and going to take care of it, or shall I grab it? I'd love to have a non-crappy way to draw chemical structures. I have been testing this for a while now, and it seems to work nicely. I have now added this to portage, thanks. |
