dev-java/dbus-java-2.7-r1 depends on dev-tex/tex4ht, where in newer versions the htlatex command isn't avaiable anymore. The newer tex4ht is needed for gnome-2.28... (cd doc/dbus-java; TEX4HTENV=/etc/tex4ht/tex4ht.env htlatex ../../dbus-java.tex "xhtml,2" "" "-cvalidate") /bin/sh: htlatex: command not found make: *** [doc/dbus-java/index.html] Error 127
Created attachment 230801 [details, diff] dbus-java-htlatex.patch Please check if attached file works for you Good luck!
(In reply to comment #1) > Created an attachment (id=230801) [details] > dbus-java-htlatex.patch > > Please check if attached file works for you > > Good luck! > Works fine for me, I plan to commit this if nobody (jave team neither reporter) replies tomorrow since it's important to solve this soon due Gnome 2.28 stabilization Thanks
(In reply to comment #2) > > Works fine for me, I plan to commit this if nobody (jave team neither reporter) > replies tomorrow since it's important to solve this soon due Gnome 2.28 > stabilization > ok (haven't tested or looked into the issue myself)
Fixed finally in the following way without a bump, if you disagree, please let me know (for learning more), thanks: java_prepare() { epatch "${FILESDIR}/${PN}-2.5.1-jarfixes.patch" + + # dev-tex/tex4ht changed htlatex path, see bug #318963 + if use doc; then + if has_version ">=dev-tex/tex4ht-20090611_p1038-r1" ; then + sed -i -e 's:htlatex:/usr/share/texmf/tex/generic/tex4ht/htlatex:' Makefile || die + fi + fi } 1. I apply the change only when "doc" USE flag is set since htlatex will only be used in that situation. With USE="-doc", it's possible that even tex4ht is not installed at all and, then, there is no need to run that sed command. 2. I use "has_version way" instead of revision bumping it requiring latest tex4ht to prevent a new stabilization pass and, also, because it's only a buildtime failure that doesn't affect to runtime. 3. I change it with "sed" instead of applying the patch since I don't think it will go to upstream ever (since our htlatex provided by tex4ht doesn't seem to be the general way for suppling it as seen in different distributions). This is also a more future proof since, maybe, Makefile could be modified a bit by upstream in newer versions and, then, the patch could stop applying.
(In reply to comment #4) > 3. I change it with "sed" instead of applying the patch since I don't think it > will go to upstream ever (since our htlatex provided by tex4ht doesn't seem to > be the general way for suppling it as seen in different distributions). This is > also a more future proof since, maybe, Makefile could be modified a bit by > upstream in newer versions and, then, the patch could stop applying. > In general sed is not more future proof because it can also stop doing the necessary changes without any notice.
Umm, yeah, it's also true :-|, maybe I should use patch instead, or better leave this as is? I should have read http://www.mail-archive.com/gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org/msg25756.html before :-S
(In reply to comment #4) > epatch "${FILESDIR}/${PN}-2.5.1-jarfixes.patch" > + > + # dev-tex/tex4ht changed htlatex path, see bug #318963 > + if use doc; then > + if has_version ">=dev-tex/tex4ht-20090611_p1038-r1" ; then > + sed -i -e > 's:htlatex:/usr/share/texmf/tex/generic/tex4ht/htlatex:' Makefile || die > + fi > + fi > } you shouldnt hardcode the path or it'll fail the same way when it'll change again; the standard way, as described in tex4ht's postinst message, is to use 'mk4ht htlatex'; this works with any version of tex4ht so you dont need the has_version conditional that htlatex was in PATH was a mistake that we've been carrying over for years.
OK, just fixed (and now using patch instead of "sed")
Thanks, it works great! :-)
