The stable version of pilot-link is from September 2003, and it looks like development is pretty dead at pilot-link.org. This is a problem for anyone with some newer palms. I thought that I needed the latest version to sync to my Z22, and put some effort into making an updated ebuild before I realized that it was possible to sync to my model using the existing version of pilot-link. I decided to finish up, My actions: -copy pilot-link-0.11.8-r1.ebuild -port over all of the relevant patches (the java makefile ones) -fix a makefile in bindings/ to eliminate python make install sandbox violation, diff into pilot-link-0.12.0_pre4-python_install_all.patch. This was fine in the last version, I don't know why someone removed a reference to $(DESTDIR) from the Makefile. -update bindings/Java/libjpisock.c for a changed API, remove missing file from Makefile.in, and diff the two files into pilot-link-0.12.0_pre4-java_fix.patch
Created attachment 82881 [details] pilot-link-0.12.0_pre4.ebuild
Created attachment 82882 [details, diff] pilot-link-0.12.0_pre4-java_fPIC_fix.patch
Created attachment 82883 [details, diff] pilot-link-0.12.0_pre4-java_fix.patch
Created attachment 82884 [details, diff] pilot-link-0.12.0_pre4-java_install_all.patch
Created attachment 82885 [details, diff] pilot-link-0.12.0_pre4-java_install_amd64.patch
Created attachment 82886 [details, diff] pilot-link-0.12.0_pre4-java_install_ppc.patch
Created attachment 82887 [details, diff] pilot-link-0.12.0_pre4-python_install_all.patch
A couple things I forgot to note - I haven't tested the tcltk USE flag, it could be broken, and also, this updated package breaks gnome-pilot and jpilot. I might try to figure that out later, but for now, this is it. Hopefully my effort in updating this ebuild will be useful to someone.
J-Pilot works if it is jpilot-0.99.8*. This would mean that jpilot-0.99.7 just needs to have its dependencies revised.
This Bug sounds similar to Bug 89823, although this one seems to have a more complete ebuild available.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 89823 ***
(In reply to comment #10) > This Bug sounds similar to Bug 89823, although this one seems to have a more > complete ebuild available. I just attached an updated ebuild with three patches to Bug 89823, which should include all stuff discussed here, too.
