Summary: | app-arch/p7zip-9.20.1-r2 fails to build 7zG/7zFM with "-l" in MAKEOPTS | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | Gentoo Linux | Reporter: | Mathieu Z <mobiusstripper> |
Component: | Current packages | Assignee: | Justin Lecher (RETIRED) <jlec> |
Status: | RESOLVED FIXED | ||
Severity: | normal | ||
Priority: | Normal | ||
Version: | unspecified | ||
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Package list: | Runtime testing required: | --- | |
Attachments: |
build log
uncompressed build log |
Description
Mathieu Z
2012-06-09 11:25:45 UTC
Created attachment 314771 [details]
build log
Build log attached.
Created attachment 314801 [details]
uncompressed build log
The problem are your MAKEOPTS. if you add -l you need to specify a number, like "-l 3". I don't understand why only the gui part fails, but this is the solution. (In reply to comment #3) > The problem are your MAKEOPTS. if you add -l you need to specify a number, > like "-l 3". I don't understand why only the gui part fails, but this is the > solution. And the explanation follows: 'emake 7zG' is transformed into 'make ${MAKEOPTS} 7zG', in your case: make -j3 -l 7zG GNU make sees that '7' as an argument to '-l', and thus eats the whole target. Possible solutions: 1) don't put argument-less '-l' to MAKEOPTS. Looking at the info page, '-l' without a number just removes the limit. Since you didn't set the limit earlier, it just does nothing. Drop it, problem solved (yet a similar thing could happen with MAKEOPTS=-j, I guess); 2) add '--' to the emake invocation whenever the target starts with a number. Should fix the case. We can't add '--' higher because sometimes ebuilds need to pass additional options to emake; 3) fix GNU make to not treat '7zG' as '7'. I'd suggest doing all three. 1) Mathieu, your part 2) done +*p7zip-9.20.1-r3 (09 Jun 2012) + + 09 Jun 2012; Justin Lecher <jlec@gentoo.org> -p7zip-9.20.1-r2.ebuild, + +p7zip-9.20.1-r3.ebuild: + Drop -O -pipe from buildsystem, add -- to emake so that -l doesn't get + confused by 7z* make targets, #420393 + 3) Who is up for this? |