I couldn't emerge OpenOffice 1.1. The last message had been something like this: checking the operating system... checked (Linux) checking for gcc... /usr/bin/ccache gcc checking for C compiler default output... configure: error: C compiler cannot create executables See `config.log' for more details. !!! ERROR: app-office/openoffice-1.1.0-r1 failed. !!! Function src_compile, Line 369, Exitcode 77 !!! (no error message) After istalling ccache with "emerge dev-util/ccache" it's compiling fine right now :-) Hence, this dependency should be in the ebuild! May something like DEPEND="${RDEPEND} app-shells/tcsh dev-util/ccache !app-office/openoffice-bin !sys-apps/star" By the way: Good work :-) !!!! Oli
maybe a bad gcc-config setting did you unmerge ccache resently ?
I had the same problem as Oliver, and did the same fix. What output do you want from gcc-config to determine whether or not it is a bad setting? Never had ccache installed before, so "did an unmerge ccache recently" is not an option. Did notice that I had a /usr/bin/ccache directory, with lots of symlinks from various compilers to (a non-existant) ccache. Various postings in the forums suggested just removing this directory before emerging openoffice 1.1. Or doing an "emerge ccache" followed by an "unmerge ccache". The "emerge ccache" seems to remove the /usr/bin/ccache directory and replace it with a binary. Another ccache directory is then created in /usr/lib, and this then has the various symlinks from compilers to the (now installed) ccache binary. Perhaps the install for openoffice is searching for ccache in the PATH and checking that it is executable? Would a directory in /usr/bin satisfy these checks? Two problems then (perhaps): * openoffice install is (optionally) dependent on ccache and fluffing up the checks for its availability * the install for Gentoo 1.4 (actually, mine was from an RC of 1.4) seems to leave this partial install ccache "cruft" lying around confusing people and ebuilds alike emerge of openoffice 1.0.3 did not have this problem, BTW.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 30636 ***
