| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
TrueDis
n00b
Joined: 23 Sep 2002
Posts: 48
|
 Posted: Thu Nov 14, 2002 12:27 am Post subject: vte-0.10.4 won't compile |
 |
|
I can't get vte-0.10.4 to compile in my attempts to upgrade to gnome 2.1.2. I have all other gnome 2.1.2 components, but my term is still at 2.0.1 because vte won't compile and the new term requires it. I get the following error message when emerging vte (using gcc 3.2 of course):
| Code: | gcc -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -I. -I.. -O2 -pipe -mcpu=7400 -maltivec -mabi=altivec
-fsigned-char -g -I/usr/include/glib-2.0 -I/usr/lib/glib-2.0/include -DISO2
022_MAIN -O2 -pipe -mcpu=7400 -maltivec -mabi=altivec -fsigned-char -g -I
/usr/include/glib-2.0 -I/usr/lib/glib-2.0/include -I/usr/include/gtk-2.0 -I/usr/
lib/gtk-2.0/include -I/usr/include/atk-1.0 -I/usr/include/pango-1.0 -I/usr/inclu
de/freetype2 -I/usr/X11R6/include -I/usr/X11R6/include -c -o iso2022-iso2022.
o `test -f 'iso2022.c' || echo './'`iso2022.c
vte.c:9507: parse error before "FcPattern"
vte.c: In function `vte_default_substitute':
vte.c:9511: `XftResult' undeclared (first use in this function)
vte.c:9511: (Each undeclared identifier is reported only once
vte.c:9511: for each function it appears in.)
vte.c:9511: parse error before "result"
vte.c:9518: `terminal' undeclared (first use in this function)
vte.c:9561: `result' undeclared (first use in this function)
vte.c:9561: `pattern' undeclared (first use in this function)
vte.c:9561: `FC_ANTIALIAS' undeclared (first use in this function)
vte.c:9562: `FcResultNoMatch' undeclared (first use in this function)
vte.c:9568: `FC_RGBA' undeclared (first use in this function)
vte.c:9570: `FC_RGBA_NONE' undeclared (first use in this function)
vte.c:9576: `FC_RGBA_RGB' undeclared (first use in this function)
vte.c:9579: `FC_RGBA_BGR' undeclared (first use in this function)
vte.c:9582: `FC_RGBA_VRGB' undeclared (first use in this function)
vte.c:9585: `FC_RGBA_VBGR' undeclared (first use in this function)
vte.c:9596: `FC_DPI' undeclared (first use in this function)
vte.c:9603: `FC_HINTING' undeclared (first use in this function)
vte.c: At top level:
vte.c:9649: parse error before '*' token
vte.c:9650: parse error before "FcPattern"
vte.c: In function `vte_font_match':
vte.c:9652: `FcPattern' undeclared (first use in this function)
vte.c:9652: `spec' undeclared (first use in this function)
vte.c:9652: `match' undeclared (first use in this function)
vte.c:9656: `pattern' undeclared (first use in this function)
vte.c:9664: `FcMatchPattern' undeclared (first use in this function)
vte.c:9665: `terminal' undeclared (first use in this function)
vte.c:9668: `result' undeclared (first use in this function)
vte.c: In function `vte_terminal_draw_cells':
vte.c:12325: `XftCharSpec' undeclared (first use in this function)
vte.c:12325: `ftcharspecs' undeclared (first use in this function)
make[2]: *** [vte.lo] Error 1
make[2]: *** Waiting for unfinished jobs....
make[2]: Leaving directory `/var/tmp/portage/vte-0.10.4/work/vte-0.10.4/src'
make[1]: *** [all-recursive] Error 1
make[1]: Leaving directory `/var/tmp/portage/vte-0.10.4/work/vte-0.10.4'
make: *** [all] Error 2
!!! ERROR: The ebuild did not complete successfully.
!!! Function gnome2_src_compile, Line -5519, Exitcode 2
!!! compile failure
|
Anybody have any idea whether it's a configuration error on my part, or whether the vte ebuild is borked, or whether ppc just doesn't like vte? Thanks! |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Gerk
Retired Dev
Joined: 07 May 2002
Posts: 435
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 14, 2002 4:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
These pkgs are not functional on ANY arch, and should not even be in protage AFAIC. I have talked to the devs responsible for them and asked them to remove them. Look in the packages.mask file and you will see a (lame) note that they shouldn't be used.
Sorry for any problems this may have caused |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bytal
Apprentice
Joined: 30 Sep 2002
Posts: 170
Location: NYC, USA
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 15, 2002 12:48 am Post subject: So how DO we install gnome 2.1.2 |
|
|
I get the same vte problem and if I mask it I cant emerge the new gnome. So what can I do to emerge 2.1.2?
_________________
Of all the things I lost, I miss my mind the most. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gerk
Retired Dev
Joined: 07 May 2002
Posts: 435
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 15, 2002 2:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| guys.. read the package.mask file. gnome 2.1.2 is at best (on x86) semi functional, and not at all on ppc. There is a reason it is masked, and in fact is probably going to be removed from the portage tree. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
axxackall
l33t
Joined: 06 Nov 2002
Posts: 651
Location: Toronto, Ontario, 3rd Rock From Sun
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 15, 2002 4:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gerk wrote: | | guys.. read the package.mask file. gnome 2.1.2 is at best (on x86) semi functional, and not at all on ppc. There is a reason it is masked, and in fact is probably going to be removed from the portage tree. |
Then I have some idea to propose to portage developers.
Today portage has two sorts of arch keywords, i.e. ppc and ~ppc.
Tilda symbol means "let's try unstable releases as well". Well, what's the measurement of "unstability" and why just two levels of it?
If you work with Log4j (or Log4py or Log4c), that would remind you different levels of debugging messages (trace, debug, info, warning, error, fatal, lethal etc) instead of boolean flag "--debug". Also, you can configure debug levels different for different categories (i.e. of classes).
So, how about to split architecture keywords from "stability" keywords? I know, they depend on each other some times, but can we at least have several levels of such "stability"? For example: obsolete, depricated, stable, build-risky, manual-build, runtime-risky, security-hole, etc And can we have "KEYWORDS" and "USE" variables per category rather then system-wide?
So, no need to delete Gnome-2.1.X from portage - keep it specialy for Gnome-2.1 developers. But let other users to protect themselves from "unstability" problems. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gerk
Retired Dev
Joined: 07 May 2002
Posts: 435
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 15, 2002 5:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
In fact things will be going quite the opposite way.
Non working software should NOT EVER be put into the portage tree. Gentoo is starting to gain a _very_ bad reputation becauswe of this, and it generates a LOT of false bug reports to the vendors.
Gentoo should NOT have non-working software in the tree, and in the very near future it will not have non working softare available (officially). On that note no panic, because there will be other means that you can get this software.
Also, there will be no further division added to keywording, we could add hundreds and hundreds of sets of versioniing information to them, which is only going to make things less clear, more confusing and literally impossible to track down.
Gentoo is 9and should be) shooting to make a stable distribution, not just be the lazy man's way of getting bleeding edge code. If you want to use bleeding endge code, haing it within a packaging system is NOT the way to do it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TrueDis
n00b
Joined: 23 Sep 2002
Posts: 48
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 15, 2002 6:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Just to let everyone know, I have fully working Gnome 2.1.2 on my system, except for the new terminal, I'm still using the one from 2.0.1. I was just wondering if anyone had success compiling vte or had heard of that error. Sorry about all of the confusion about unstable software, I know technically it "does not work"
...
but to everyone out there trying to get Gnome 2.1.2, it works, just remove the vte and gnome-terminal deps from the gnome-2.1.2.ebuild (or whatever it is) and emerge gnome (after unmasking the packages of course) ... good luck! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
Gentoo on PPC
