[gentoo-dev] Gnome 2.2 rc1 ++ stuff

[gentoo-dev] Gnome 2.2 rc1 ++ stuff

[Spider]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 444 bytes --]

Heyas all,
I took the time last night to get back on the bleeding edge with Gnome
2.2, I updated fosers packages for 2.2rc1 to the latest versions,
test-build them all and updated dependencies appropiately.  Running it
now without any appearant problems, so most things seem to be "ok".

//Spider


--
begin  .signature
This is a .signature virus! Please copy me into your .signature!
See Microsoft KB Article Q265230 for more information.
end

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gnome 2.2 rc1 ++ stuff

[Spider]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 652 bytes --]

begin  quote
On Tue, 21 Jan 2003 20:55:28 +0100
Spider <spider@gentoo.org> wrote:

> Heyas all,
> I took the time last night to get back on the bleeding edge with Gnome
> 2.2, I updated fosers packages for 2.2rc1 to the latest versions,
> test-build them all and updated dependencies appropiately.  Running it
> now without any appearant problems, so most things seem to be "ok".
> 
> //Spider
> 

oops, forgot.
http://gentoo.org/~spider/
and

http://cvs.gentoo.org/~spider/gnome-2.2rc1-20030121.tar.bz2



--
begin  .signature
This is a .signature virus! Please copy me into your .signature!
See Microsoft KB Article Q265230 for more information.
end

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gnome 2.2 rc1 ++ stuff

[Blake Watters]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1084 bytes --]

Heya -

I started building the latest 2.2rc1 ebuild. There's some b0rkage in the yelp ebuild -- somebody tried to use =package-name-version* instead of >= and no asterisk. I've started the build to check it out on one of my workstation, I'll report any failed compiles or other strangeness.

Cheers,
Blake

On Tue, 21 Jan 2003 21:14:07 +0100
Spider <spider@gentoo.org> wrote:

> begin  quote
> On Tue, 21 Jan 2003 20:55:28 +0100
> Spider <spider@gentoo.org> wrote:
> 
> > Heyas all,
> > I took the time last night to get back on the bleeding edge with Gnome
> > 2.2, I updated fosers packages for 2.2rc1 to the latest versions,
> > test-build them all and updated dependencies appropiately.  Running it
> > now without any appearant problems, so most things seem to be "ok".
> > 
> > //Spider
> > 
> 
> oops, forgot.
> http://gentoo.org/~spider/
> and
> 
> http://cvs.gentoo.org/~spider/gnome-2.2rc1-20030121.tar.bz2
> 
> 
> 
> --
> begin  .signature
> This is a .signature virus! Please copy me into your .signature!
> See Microsoft KB Article Q265230 for more information.
> end
> 

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gnome 2.2 rc1 ++ stuff

[Thomas de Grenier de Latour]

On Tue, 21 Jan 2003 20:55:28 +0100
Spider <spider@gentoo.org> wrote:

> Heyas all,
> I took the time last night to get back on the bleeding edge with Gnome
> 2.2, I updated fosers packages for 2.2rc1 to the latest versions,
> test-build them all and updated dependencies appropiately.  Running it
> now without any appearant problems, so most things seem to be "ok".

I've tested your ebuilds on my gentoo 1.2 box, with gcc 2.95. Here are
the small build errors I've encountered:
 - perl 5.8, wich is a dependency, is masked in default-1.0 profile. I
have commented out the "*<sys-devel/perl-5.8.0" line in the "packages"
file. It seems to work, but maybe this line was here for good reasons...
Wait and see.
 - I had to set USE="-doc" for emerging gstreamer-0.5.1. Sorry, I don't
have the log of the errors.
 - I had to apply a small change to gnome-terminal sources, as explained
here: http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=103065

Until now, as you've said, "most things seem to be ok". Thanks for the
good work.


-- 
Thomas.

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gnome 2.2 rc1 ++ stuff

[Spider]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 832 bytes --]

begin  quote
On Wed, 22 Jan 2003 17:32:09 -0500
Blake Watters <sbw@ibiblio.org> wrote:

> 
> 
> I started building the latest 2.2rc1 ebuild. There's some b0rkage in
> the yelp ebuild -- somebody tried to use =package-name-version*
> instead of >= and no asterisk. I've started the build to check it out
> on one of my workstation, I'll report any failed compiles or other
> strangeness.
> 
> Cheers,

okay, more updates that fixed : 
control-center borkage on paralell builds
gdm installation wasn't complete :  fixed.
gnome-session missed some files:  fixed
removed debug info on all 2.2.x packages

Can you give me the complete information about the yelp b0rkage please? 



//Spider

--
begin  .signature
This is a .signature virus! Please copy me into your .signature!
See Microsoft KB Article Q265230 for more information.
end

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gnome 2.2 rc1 ++ stuff

[Spider]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1681 bytes --]

begin  quote
On Thu, 23 Jan 2003 00:37:53 +0100
Thomas de Grenier de Latour <degrenier@easyconnect.fr> wrote:

> On Tue, 21 Jan 2003 20:55:28 +0100
> Spider <spider@gentoo.org> wrote:
> 
> > Heyas all,
> > I took the time last night to get back on the bleeding edge with
> > Gnome 2.2, I updated fosers packages for 2.2rc1 to the latest
> > versions, test-build them all and updated dependencies appropiately.
> >  Running it
> > now without any appearant problems, so most things seem to be "ok".
> 
> I've tested your ebuilds on my gentoo 1.2 box, with gcc 2.95. Here are
> the small build errors I've encountered:
>  - perl 5.8, wich is a dependency, is masked in default-1.0 profile. I
> have commented out the "*<sys-devel/perl-5.8.0" line in the "packages"
> file. It seems to work, but maybe this line was here for good
> reasons... Wait and see.

Well, all the perl depends are now back to 5.6, that was my oops  :/  

>  - I had to set USE="-doc" for emerging gstreamer-0.5.1. Sorry, I
>  don't  have the log of the errors. 

Can't tell here either since I had to bypass gstreamer docs building due
to disc constraints ( had to remove tetex to get enough free space to
install things )

>  - I had to apply a small change to gnome-terminal sources, as
>  explained
> here: http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=103065

Will look.. thankyou.

 
> Until now, as you've said, "most things seem to be ok". Thanks for the
> good work.

Updated my local builds to match this, will release the changed ones
tomorrow.

//Spider



--
begin  .signature
This is a .signature virus! Please copy me into your .signature!
See Microsoft KB Article Q265230 for more information.
end

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gnome 2.2 rc1 ++ stuff

[Blake Watters]

Sure thing.

The yelp-2.2.0-r1.ebuild has errors in the RDEPEND section. There are 5 
depend lines of the form =gnome-base/libgnomeui-2.1*, which causes portage 
to throw dependance errors when it parses the files. I changed them to >= 
gnome-base/package-name without the additional asterisk at the end of the 
line. The build proceeded smoothly from there (Gentoo 1.4 running with 
~x86 and heavily customized use flags, 2.4.19-xfs kernel).

Blake

On Thu, 23 Jan 2003, Spider wrote:

> begin  quote
> On Wed, 22 Jan 2003 17:32:09 -0500
> Blake Watters <sbw@ibiblio.org> wrote:
> 
> > 
> > 
> > I started building the latest 2.2rc1 ebuild. There's some b0rkage in
> > the yelp ebuild -- somebody tried to use =package-name-version*
> > instead of >= and no asterisk. I've started the build to check it out
> > on one of my workstation, I'll report any failed compiles or other
> > strangeness.
> > 
> > Cheers,
> 
> okay, more updates that fixed : 
> control-center borkage on paralell builds
> gdm installation wasn't complete :  fixed.
> gnome-session missed some files:  fixed
> removed debug info on all 2.2.x packages
> 
> Can you give me the complete information about the yelp b0rkage please? 
> 
> 
> 
> //Spider
> 
> --
> begin  .signature
> This is a .signature virus! Please copy me into your .signature!
> See Microsoft KB Article Q265230 for more information.
> end
> 


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list