[gentoo-dev] libfm requires dbus-glib to build, but it is not listed as a dependency.

[gentoo-dev] libfm requires dbus-glib to build, but it is not listed as a dependency.

[alexmcwhirter]

The title pretty much explains it all. I did a clean install using the 
generic desktop profile and went on to build lxqt. The build failed with 
libfm which complained of dbus-glib not being found. A quick emerge of 
dbus-glib resolved the issue.

this would be libfm-1.2.3-r1

Re: [gentoo-dev] libfm requires dbus-glib to build, but it is not listed as a dependency.

[malc]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 561 bytes --]

You will want to report that on bugs.gentoo.org, providing the suggested
emerge info etc. please :)
The reference at [1] is your friend.

Cheers,
malc.

[1] https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Bugzilla/Guide


On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 5:58 AM, <alexmcwhirter@triadic.us> wrote:

> The title pretty much explains it all. I did a clean install using the
> generic desktop profile and went on to build lxqt. The build failed with
> libfm which complained of dbus-glib not being found. A quick emerge of
> dbus-glib resolved the issue.
>
> this would be libfm-1.2.3-r1
>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1049 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] libfm requires dbus-glib to build, but it is not listed as a dependency.

[Kent Fredric]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1040 bytes --]

On Fri, 12 Aug 2016 10:57:53 +0100
malc <mlashley@gmail.com> wrote:

> You will want to report that on bugs.gentoo.org, providing the
> suggested emerge info etc. please :)
> The reference at [1] is your friend.
> 
> Cheers,
> malc.
> 

I agree, a bugzilla bug is usaully better.

Though I am somewhat of the opinion that if people only reached as far
as to report it via email, we should accept it in that form and do the
rest ourselves.

Some people, myself included, hate signing up for things on a regular
basis.

And email is thus simply another way people can engage in opensource
freely.

Additional barriers and requirements are not required here.

Its already cost both of us combined more effort than relaying the bug
ourselves ;) 

As it happens, a bug meeting the OPs' description was already filed
last September, and its maintainers just haven't gotten around to
fixing it yet.

https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=560586

So this time, an additional bug is not required to be opened :)

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --]