x86_64-pc-linux-gnu-gcc -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -I.. -D_GNU_SOURCE -O2 -pipe -march=native -c -o fseeko.o fseeko.c fseeko.c: In function ‘rpl_fseeko’: fseeko.c:105:4: error: #error "Please port gnulib fseeko.c to your platform! Look at the code in fpurge.c, then report this to bug-gnulib." #error "Please port gnulib fseeko.c to your platform! Look at the code in fpurge.c, then report this to bug-gnulib." ^~~~~ make[4]: *** [Makefile:2044: fseeko.o] Error 1 ------------------------------------------------------------------- This is an stable amd64 chroot image at a tinderbox (==build bot) name: 17.0-no-multilib-hardened_stable-libressl_20190502-165513 ------------------------------------------------------------------- Please see the tracker bug for details. gcc-config -l: [1] x86_64-pc-linux-gnu-7.3.1 [2] x86_64-pc-linux-gnu-8.3.0 * Available Python interpreters, in order of preference: [1] python3.6 [2] python2.7 (fallback) Available Ruby profiles: [1] ruby24 (with Rubygems) * Available Rust versions: [1] rust-1.29.1 * emerge -qpvO app-misc/gcal [ebuild N ] app-misc/gcal-3.6.3 USE="ncurses nls unicode"
Created attachment 575834 [details] emerge-info.txt
Created attachment 575836 [details] app-misc:gcal-3.6.3:20190508-003905.log
Created attachment 575838 [details] emerge-history.txt
Created attachment 575840 [details] environment
Created attachment 575842 [details] etc.portage.tbz2
Created attachment 575844 [details] logs.tbz2
Created attachment 575846 [details] temp.tbz2
Hello, I'll get the same error message using gcc 8.3.0 on x86 32 bit. info-gcal.tgz holds all relevant log-files. CU Tom
Created attachment 577782 [details] all relevant log-files
I just got the same error: gcal 3.6.3, default/linux/amd64/17.1/no-multilib, gcc-8.3.0, glibc-2.29-r2, There's a post on the gcal mailing list: https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-gcal/2018-10/msg00000.html The error seems to be fixed in gcal-4.1 - I could install gcal-4.1 without a problem.
Hit the same issue. Maybe gcal-4.1 deserves the stable state more than gcal-3.6.3?
*** Bug 814188 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***