liblinux/pngrw.c: In function ‘ReadPNG’: liblinux/pngrw.c:139: error: ‘png_infopp_NULL’ undeclared (first use in this function) liblinux/pngrw.c:139: error: (Each undeclared identifier is reported only once liblinux/pngrw.c:139: error: for each function it appears in.) liblinux/pngrw.c:165: warning: implicit declaration of function ‘png_check_sig’ liblinux/pngrw.c:202: error: ‘int_p_NULL’ undeclared (first use in this function) liblinux/pngrw.c:164: warning: ignoring return value of ‘fread’, declared with attribute warn_unused_result make[1]: *** [liblinux/pngrw.o] Error 1
Upon closer inspection, it seems that in $S/rice_video/liblinux/, there is a bundled version of libpng at 1.2.5
Created attachment 222921 [details, diff] Update fix_readpng.patch, Fix FTBFS with libpng14 Patch taken from Debian mupen64plus 1.5+dfsg1-8
(In reply to comment #2) > Created an attachment (id=222921) [details] > Update fix_readpng.patch, Fix FTBFS with libpng14 > > Patch taken from Debian mupen64plus 1.5+dfsg1-8 > Umm... no, this is for something else. The actual libpng-1.4 problem is fixed in portage now
Now you created a patch for a patch. Why don't just fix the patch?
Created attachment 223757 [details, diff] Update fix_readpng.patch, Fix FTBFS with libpng14 and remove coding style only changes Just for further explanation: Christian Birchinger <joker@gentoo.org> had imported many patches from Debian in his change from 24 Nov 2009. This includes a patch which is not compatible with libpng14. And exactly that patch has been updated in Debian to support libpng14. You just wrote a patch to patch the already patched parts to fix the problems introduced by the patch. These patches are stored in mirror://gentoo/mupen64plus-1.5-patches-20091123.tar.bz2 - the name inside that tar.bz2 is 260_all_fix_readpng.patch
