Summary: | [sabayon,DuPol,quarks overlay] x11-misc/cairo-dock-2.4.0.2 cannot compile with dev-libs/glib-2.32, "Only <glib.h> can be included directly." | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | Gentoo Linux | Reporter: | Kevin Dinant <kevinpoubelle> |
Component: | New packages | Assignee: | Fabio Erculiani (RETIRED) <lxnay> |
Status: | RESOLVED FIXED | ||
Severity: | normal | CC: | DuPol, it, slawomir.nizio |
Priority: | Normal | ||
Version: | unspecified | ||
Hardware: | AMD64 | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
URL: | https://bugs.launchpad.net/cairo-dock-core/+bug/992861 | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Package list: | Runtime testing required: | --- | |
Bug Depends on: | |||
Bug Blocks: | 406437 | ||
Attachments: |
build.log
build.log cairo-dock-3.0.0 (quarks overlay) |
Description
Kevin Dinant
2012-04-18 17:36:48 UTC
Created attachment 309429 [details]
build.log
Thanks for the report but as this ebuild is not in the official tree, this bugs probably will be closed as INVALID. I've just check that cairo-dock-3.0.0 has been released and I will work on the version bump for the DuPol overlay. Probably, this issue is already solved in this version. (In reply to comment #2) > Thanks for the report but as this ebuild is not in the official tree, this > bugs probably will be closed as INVALID. It's in -3- overlays, which is a problem in itself. Do the three versions disagree, or why are they needed? Also, ebuilds in overlays get bug reports assigned to the e-mail address(ses) mentioned in [1]. [1] http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/overlays/layman-global.txt @lxnay: The e-mail address mentioned in [1] is not a valid bugzilla user: <overlay contact="lxnay@sabayon.org" name="sabayon" src="git://git.sabayon.org/projects/overlays/for-gentoo.git" status="unofficial" type="git"> [1] http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/overlays/layman-global.txt x11-misc/cairo-dock was updated to 3.0.0 in overlay quarks but compilation fails with, I think, the same error. Created attachment 309539 [details]
build.log cairo-dock-3.0.0 (quarks overlay)
I just saw that x11-misc/cairo-dock-3.0.0 has been added to miramir overlay (so now cairo-dock is in 4 overlays) and it does compile there! Hi, the ebuild in the miramir overlay is a copy of the ebuild from quarks overlay + the glib compile fix. I updated quarks to cairo-dock-3.0.0-r1 This really proves we should get this thing upstream.. sunrise overlay ? Suggestions ? Should be fixed in Sabayon overlay now (for 2.4.0.2, version bump will be later). It's a copy from quarks (thanks!) with minor modifications, but Sabayon overlays are special: (with rare exceptions) it's needed for an ebuild to be there in order to create a package. (unless they're in Portage, of course) By the way, some overlays place plugins under x11-misc category, other ones under x11-plugins - it's a good thing to unify too. I think x11-plugins suits better. PS I've tested cairo-dock and -plugins on x86 and it works, so you may want to keyword it for this architecture in your overlays. Hi all, as suggested by Enlik, I moved the plugins to x11-plugins. and added ~x86 to cairo-dock and plugins in the quarks overlay. Version bump to v3.0.0. needs a bit more work, so I fixed v2.4.0.2 in DuPol overlay for now. Has anyone sent the patch already to upstream's maintainers yet? (In reply to comment #10) > PS I've tested cairo-dock and -plugins on x86 and it works, so you may want > to keyword it for this architecture in your overlays. Will do with 3.0.0 version bump. (In reply to comment #3) > It's in -3- overlays, which is a problem in itself. Do the three versions > disagree, or why are they needed? I started using cairo-dock when it was up-to-date in desktop-effects overlay. When it wasn't updated there anymore, I started to work on it in my own overlay where I focussed on fixing automagic dependencies and making applets individually selectable by USE flags. Patch sent upstream, see URL (In reply to comment #13) > Patch sent upstream, see URL Accepted and commited upstream. Anyone objects to close this bug now? > Patch sent upstream, see URL Thanks! > Anyone objects to close this bug now? Seems it'd be fine to do so. (In reply to comment #15) > > Anyone objects to close this bug now? > Seems it'd be fine to do so. Noone screemed, so closing. Speak up if you want it opened for some reason. |