Summary: | sys-apps/iproute2-4.5.0[-iptables]: error: redeclaration of enumerator ‘IFF_*’ | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | Gentoo Linux | Reporter: | Perfect Gentleman <perfect007gentleman> |
Component: | [OLD] Core system | Assignee: | Gentoo's Team for Core System packages <base-system> |
Status: | RESOLVED FIXED | ||
Severity: | normal | CC: | ao, awilfox.gentoo, bertrand, bkohler, bug, carlphilippreh, che, cj.wijtmans, cryptopsy, gentoo, h.mth, karl.j.linden, marduk, pesa, proteuss, reuben-gentoo-bugzilla, skrattaren, vityokster, wtt6, xaviermiller, zszafran |
Priority: | Normal | ||
Version: | unspecified | ||
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
URL: | http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.network/393907/focus=394053 | ||
See Also: | https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=577660 | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Package list: | Runtime testing required: | --- | |
Attachments: | iproute2-4.5.0-no-iptables.patch |
Description
Perfect Gentleman
2016-03-15 11:50:16 UTC
Same issue. This happens when iproute-4.5.0 is built with USE=-iptables. A work-around is to build with USE=iptables. i use only USE=minimal [ebuild U ] sys-apps/iproute2-4.5.0::gentoo [4.4.0::gentoo] USE="minimal -atm -berkdb -iptables -ipv6 (-selinux)" 542 KiB not '-minimal', but just 'minimal' I wrote a mail to upstream regarding this problem and all I got as response was "patches welcome". I met same trouble. Because iproute2 depends on iptables, after installing iptables, compile will be work. Upstream seems to want iptables installed. But There are users who don't want to install iptables. This (install iptables) workaround isn't the solution. There should be the patch that drops iptables dependent codes. Created attachment 428450 [details, diff]
iproute2-4.5.0-no-iptables.patch
1. Save the attached patch in /etc/portage/patches/sys-apps/iproute2-4.5.0/.
2. Create the file /etc/portage/env/sys-apps/iproute2-4.5.0 with these contents:
pre_src_prepare() {
epatch_user
}
3. Retry to emerge =sys-apps/iproute2-4.5.0.
(In reply to Matt Whitlock from comment #6) > Created attachment 428450 [details, diff] [details, diff] > iproute2-4.5.0-no-iptables.patch The patch worked for me. Thanks. Interestingly enough, I'm now getting a similar issue with systemd. (In reply to Albert W. Hopkins from comment #7) > (In reply to Matt Whitlock from comment #6) > > Created attachment 428450 [details, diff] [details, diff] [details, diff] > > iproute2-4.5.0-no-iptables.patch > > The patch worked for me. Thanks. +1. Looks good here as well. Thanks! Matt, have you tried to submit this patch to upstream? (In reply to Lars Wendler (Polynomial-C) from comment #9) > Matt, have you tried to submit this patch to upstream? No, I haven't. For what it's worth, if anyone tries to build iproute2 with my patch using linux-headers-4.5 but a supremely old version of iptables (such as is missing xtables), then I think they'll run into the same header snafu as reported in this bug. Hopefully everyone trying to build iproute2 with iptables support is using a modern version of iptables that includes xtables. (IMHO, upstream support for building with iptables but without xtables should be dropped.) (In reply to Matt Whitlock from comment #10) > (In reply to Lars Wendler (Polynomial-C) from comment #9) > > Matt, have you tried to submit this patch to upstream? > > No, I haven't. > > For what it's worth, if anyone tries to build iproute2 with my patch using > linux-headers-4.5 but a supremely old version of iptables (such as is > missing xtables), then I think they'll run into the same header snafu as > reported in this bug. Hopefully everyone trying to build iproute2 with > iptables support is using a modern version of iptables that includes > xtables. (IMHO, upstream support for building with iptables but without > xtables should be dropped.) Would you mind if I submit your patch upstream? I'd keep you as author of course and would also add your comment about iptables without xtables to the patch. (In reply to Lars Wendler (Polynomial-C) from comment #11) > Would you mind if I submit your patch upstream? I'd keep you as author of > course and would also add your comment about iptables without xtables to the > patch. Please do. Attribution not required. Patch sent upstream. I'd like to wait for their feedback before I gonna add the patch to our tree. *** Bug 577942 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** *** Bug 578540 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** Is it time to add this patch for ::gentoo? I don't see any activity upstream, we're broken here for over a month now I would be cautious about adding a patch to Gentoo which hasn't been accepted upstream. We don't know if they are working on another way to handle the issue. (In reply to William Hubbs from comment #17) > I would be cautious about adding a patch to Gentoo which hasn't been > accepted upstream. We don't know if they are working on another way to > handle the issue. Then Gentoo should remove "iptables" from IUSE and require iptables unconditionally because the build is broken right now. I personally don't like this, but it's preferable to the ebuild remaining broken in the tree. If upstream is working on another solution, then couldn't we just put the patch in now with a comment to remind ourselves that the patch is just a temporary workaround, to be removed once upstream has implemented a fix? Looks like linux-headers is going to include a libc workaround, see: http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/620262/ Also mentions a workaround for userspace code. This was included in Gentoo's 4.5.0-4.8.0, and fixed upstream after that. I confirm all of 4.12.0 - 4.14.1 compile correctly with USE=-iptables and no iptables present on the system. |