Summary: | gnustep-base/gnustep-base-1.24.8 : configure: error: in `/.../gnustep-base-1.24.8': with sys-devel/binutils-2.25.1-r1[multitarget] | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | Gentoo Linux | Reporter: | Toralf Förster <toralf> |
Component: | Current packages | Assignee: | Gentoo Gnustep project <gnustep> |
Status: | RESOLVED OBSOLETE | ||
Severity: | normal | CC: | ahferroin7, deference, Timewulf |
Priority: | Normal | ||
Version: | unspecified | ||
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Package list: | Runtime testing required: | --- | |
Attachments: |
config.log
emerge-history.txt gnustep-base:gnustep-base-1.24.8:20151005-121227.log |
Description
Toralf Förster
2015-10-05 12:16:39 UTC
Created attachment 413806 [details]
config.log
Created attachment 413808 [details]
emerge-history.txt
Created attachment 413810 [details]
gnustep-base:gnustep-base-1.24.8:20151005-121227.log
I'm seeing the exact same issue on my system (native (not prefix) unstable hardened amd64). Out of curiosity, do you have the multitarget USE flag enabled for sys-devel/binutils? I just tried updating on one of my other systems, and had no issue. The system I'm seeing this on has USE='multitarget' for sys-devel/binutils, whereas the one I am not seeing this on does not. Same problem on ~amd64 with USE='multitarget' set for binutils. it seems dev-ruby/racc suffers from the same problem. Thanks everyone for tracking this down, this indeed only happens with binutils[multitarget]. This should be probably be fixed in the common bug #562060 *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 562060 *** Based on comments in bug #562060, this is actually a bug in the build system for gnustep-base (it sets LD_LIBRARY_PATH, which is something that should not be done in a build system), and not in binutils. As such, this bug should probably be re-opened and dealt with here. Reopening to keep tracking this bug, the gnustep build system should be tweaked to leave LD_LIBRARY_PATH alone Does it still make sense to keep this bug open? *** Bug 588118 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** (In reply to Andreas K. Hüttel from comment #11) > Does it still make sense to keep this bug open? Seems not. |