When emerging Paraview on x86_64 platform a binary is not built/placed in the correct path. Result is that paraview compiles but is not executable from CLI. Reproducible: Always Steps to Reproduce: 1.emerge -uav paraview 2.paraview 3. Actual Results: Paraview seems to compile/emerge fine but then a binary executable is not placed in the proper place... Expected Results: Paraview should have emerged and been executable with command paraview. #CFLAGS="-O2 -pipe" CFLAGS="-march=athlon64 -O2 -pipe" CHOST="x86_64-pc-linux-gnu" CXXFLAGS="${CFLAGS}" MAKEOPTS="-j3" ACCEPT_KEYWORDS="" INPUT_DEVICES="keyboard mouse" VIDEO_CARDS="nvidia" ALSA_CARDS="usb-audio" USE="-gnome 3dfx 3dnow X a52 aac aim alsa amd64 apache2 arts avi cairo cddb cdparanoia cdr cdrom clamav crypt css cups dbus dri dvd dvdr dvdread emacs encode ffmpeg firefox flac foomaticdb fortran f77 gcj gd gif gimp gimpprint gpm gtk hal hdf5 icq java jpeg kde mad mmx mp3 mp4 mpeg mplayer msn mysql multilib mysql ncurses nptl nsplugin ogg opengl pam pda pdf perl png python qt4 quicktime readline samba sdl spell ssl sqlite tiff truetype win32codecs xine xscreensaver xml xv" FEATURES=""
This seems to have been fixed in the 3.4.0 ebuild - please try that one: 30 Oct 2008; Markus Dittrich <markusle@gentoo.org> paraview-3.4.0.ebuild: Fixed wrong installation path and went back to EAPI=1 to ease installation for users of the stable branch. Also rolled back the OpenFOAM patch one version since the newer seems to cause problems. *paraview-3.4.0 (28 Oct 2008) 28 Oct 2008; Markus Dittrich <markusle@gentoo.org> +paraview-3.4.0.ebuild: Version bump (see bug #243362).
I assume this is due to the hardmasked qt4 USE-flag, which was done, because of stabilizing qt-4.4.*. See also comment 32 in bug 243362. To unmask the qt4 USE-flag do the following: echo "-qt4" >> /etc/portage/profile/use.mask If paraview3 is build without qt4 USE-flag, only the render servers were build. This is valid for all paraview3 packages, see also my comment 29 in bug 243362.
(In reply to comment #2) Pardon my ignorance but isn't this worse that having a buggy display? This does indeed rebuild paraview with an executable. However, I don't see the point in hardmasking something which removes all usability of the application... Just my $.02.
paraview-3.6.1 just hit portage which should work fine with >=qt4.5. Please give this version a try. cheers, Markus
