[gentoo-user] emerging procmail failure

[gentoo-user] emerging procmail failure

[Harry Putnam]

setup:
  kernel-2.6.29-r2
  gcc-4.3.2-r3
procmail is one tool that is absolutely robust and I expected no
trouble whatever emerging it... however the emerge is failing like
as shown below.  I'm not sure what to do about getline.

The only useflags that come up are one I set 
 `mbox' 
and one other
 `-selenix'

[...]
ln ../src/procmail ../new/procmail
i486-pc-linux-gnu-gcc -c -O2 -march=i486 -pipe -fno-inline-functions   lockfile.c
i486-pc-linux-gnu-gcc -O2 -march=i486 -pipe -fno-inline-functions   lockfile.o exopen.o sublib.o acommon.o mcommon.o authenticate.o lastdirsep.o -o lockfile -Wl,-z,now -Wl,-O1   -lm -lnsl -ldl -lc
ln ../src/lockfile ../new/lockfile
i486-pc-linux-gnu-gcc -c -O2 -march=i486 -pipe -fno-inline-functions   formail.c
In file included from formail.c:25:
formisc.h:20: error: conflicting types for 'getline'
/usr/include/stdio.h:651: error: previous declaration of 'getline' was here
make[1]: *** [formail.o] Error 1
make[1]: Leaving directory `/var/tmp/portage/mail-filter/procmail-3.22-r10/work/procmail-3.22/src'
make: *** [bins] Error 2
 *
 * ERROR: mail-filter/procmail-3.22-r10 failed.
 * Call stack:
 *               ebuild.sh, line   49:  Called src_compile
 *             environment, line 2527:  Called die
 * The specific snippet of code:
 *       emake CC="$(tc-getCC)" || die
 *  The die message:
 *   (no error message)
 *

 * If you need support, post the topmost build error, and the call
   stack if relevant.

 * A complete build log is located at
   '/var/tmp/portage/mail-filter/procmail-3.22-r10/temp/build.log'.

 * The ebuild environment file is located at
 *'/var/tmp/portage/mail-filter/procmail-3.22-r10/temp/environment'.

Re: [gentoo-user] emerging procmail failure

[Johám-Luís Miguéns Vila]

Harry Putnam <reader@newsguy.com> writes:

> setup:
>   kernel-2.6.29-r2
>   gcc-4.3.2-r3
> procmail is one tool that is absolutely robust and I expected no
> trouble whatever emerging it... however the emerge is failing like
> as shown below.  I'm not sure what to do about getline.
>
> The only useflags that come up are one I set 
>  `mbox' 
> and one other
>  `-selenix'
>
> [...]
> ln ../src/procmail ../new/procmail
> i486-pc-linux-gnu-gcc -c -O2 -march=i486 -pipe -fno-inline-functions   lockfile.c
> i486-pc-linux-gnu-gcc -O2 -march=i486 -pipe -fno-inline-functions   lockfile.o exopen.o sublib.o acommon.o mcommon.o authenticate.o lastdirsep.o -o lockfile -Wl,-z,now -Wl,-O1   -lm -lnsl -ldl -lc
> ln ../src/lockfile ../new/lockfile
> i486-pc-linux-gnu-gcc -c -O2 -march=i486 -pipe -fno-inline-functions   formail.c
> In file included from formail.c:25:
> formisc.h:20: error: conflicting types for 'getline'
> /usr/include/stdio.h:651: error: previous declaration of 'getline' was here
> make[1]: *** [formail.o] Error 1
> make[1]: Leaving directory `/var/tmp/portage/mail-filter/procmail-3.22-r10/work/procmail-3.22/src'
> make: *** [bins] Error 2
>  *
>  * ERROR: mail-filter/procmail-3.22-r10 failed.
>  * Call stack:
>  *               ebuild.sh, line   49:  Called src_compile
>  *             environment, line 2527:  Called die
>  * The specific snippet of code:
>  *       emake CC="$(tc-getCC)" || die
>  *  The die message:
>  *   (no error message)
>  *
>
>  * If you need support, post the topmost build error, and the call
>    stack if relevant.
>
>  * A complete build log is located at
>    '/var/tmp/portage/mail-filter/procmail-3.22-r10/temp/build.log'.
>
>  * The ebuild environment file is located at
>  *'/var/tmp/portage/mail-filter/procmail-3.22-r10/temp/environment'.
>
>

http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=270551

HTH

-- 
Education is the process of casting false pearls before real swine.
		-- Irwin Edman
 - This message may be digitally signed: GPG KeyID:0x9D2FD6C8 || FNMT SSL cert

[gentoo-user] Re: emerging procmail failure

[Harry Putnam]

galiza.ceive@gmail.com (Johám-Luís Miguéns Vila) writes:

> http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=270551
>
> HTH

Yes... except _OH CRAP_ I've forgotten whatever little tiny skill I once
had to add a patch into the emerge process manually.

Or dink around with sed inside as another poster on the bug
did... also manually.

Any URL where I can beef up on that a bit?

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: emerging procmail failure

[Paul Hartman]

On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 3:03 PM, Harry Putnam<reader@newsguy.com> wrote:
>
> Yes... except _OH CRAP_ I've forgotten whatever little tiny skill I once
> had to add a patch into the emerge process manually.

man ebuild

HTH :)

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: emerging procmail failure

[Johám-Luís Miguéns Vila]

Harry Putnam <reader@newsguy.com> writes:

> galiza.ceive@gmail.com (Johám-Luís Miguéns Vila) writes:
>
>> http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=270551
>>
>> HTH
>
> Yes... except _OH CRAP_ I've forgotten whatever little tiny skill I once
> had to add a patch into the emerge process manually.
>
> Or dink around with sed inside as another poster on the bug
> did... also manually.
>
> Any URL where I can beef up on that a bit?
>
>

Here you are:

http://devmanual.gentoo.org/ebuild-writing/functions/src_unpack/epatch/index.html

cheers
-- 
Education is the process of casting false pearls before real swine.
		-- Irwin Edman
 - This message may be digitally signed: GPG KeyID:0x9D2FD6C8 || FNMT SSL cert

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: emerging procmail failure

[Johám-Luís Miguéns Vila]

Harry Putnam <reader@newsguy.com> writes:

> Or dink around with sed inside as another poster on the bug
> did... also manually.

Just do a less on
/usr/portage/mail-filter/procmail/procmail-3.22-r10.ebuild and you'll
see a good example.

Cheers.
-- 
Education is the process of casting false pearls before real swine.
		-- Irwin Edman
 - This message may be digitally signed: GPG KeyID:0x9D2FD6C8 || FNMT SSL cert

[gentoo-user] Re: emerging procmail failure

[Harry Putnam]

Paul Hartman <paul.hartman+gentoo@gmail.com> writes:

> On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 3:03 PM, Harry Putnam<reader@newsguy.com> wrote:
>>
>> Yes... except _OH CRAP_ I've forgotten whatever little tiny skill I once
>> had to add a patch into the emerge process manually.
>
> man ebuild
>
> HTH :)

Doesn't any manual patching have to be done in an overlay?  My own
portage setup.  Then stepped thru with ebuild to get it accepted by
emerge?

I see no hits at all on either `overlay' or `layman' in man ebuild.
There must be more to the story than just running ebuild commands. And
expect the modified ebuild to be accepted by emerge.

[gentoo-user] Re: emerging procmail failure

[Harry Putnam]

Paul Hartman <paul.hartman+gentoo@gmail.com> writes:

> On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 3:03 PM, Harry Putnam<reader@newsguy.com> wrote:
>>
>> Yes... except _OH CRAP_ I've forgotten whatever little tiny skill I once
>> had to add a patch into the emerge process manually.
>
> man ebuild

Just in case another intellectually challenged gentoo user happens to
be searching for nuts and bolts of creating a custom ebuild.  I looked
up a previous thread I started here in Nov 2008, with 

  Subject: Nots and bolts of creating an ebuild

where some brief outlines of how to do it are provided by David R and
Daniel P.

See it on gmane here:
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.user/205481/focus=205483

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: emerging procmail failure

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 464 bytes --]

On Thu, 11 Jun 2009 00:04:33 -0500, Harry Putnam wrote:

> > man ebuild

> I see no hits at all on either `overlay' or `layman' in man ebuild.
> There must be more to the story than just running ebuild commands. And
> expect the modified ebuild to be accepted by emerge.

That's because the instruction should have been man 5 ebuild. You're
looking at the man page for the ebuild command.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

Why is the word abbreviation so long?

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: emerging procmail failure

[Paul Hartman]

On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 12:04 AM, Harry Putnam<reader@newsguy.com> wrote:
> Paul Hartman <paul.hartman+gentoo@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 3:03 PM, Harry Putnam<reader@newsguy.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Yes... except _OH CRAP_ I've forgotten whatever little tiny skill I once
>>> had to add a patch into the emerge process manually.
>>
>> man ebuild
>>
>> HTH :)
>
> Doesn't any manual patching have to be done in an overlay?  My own
> portage setup.  Then stepped thru with ebuild to get it accepted by
> emerge?
>
> I see no hits at all on either `overlay' or `layman' in man ebuild.
> There must be more to the story than just running ebuild commands. And
> expect the modified ebuild to be accepted by emerge.

Sorry, I was thinking you would apply the patch manually as a
one-off... which you could do by unpacking using the ebuild command,
applying patch, then compiling/merging it. If you want to make your
own ebuild then yes you'd most likely want to put it in an overlay.