Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2001 18:54:26 -0400 (EDT) From: The Anarcat <anarcat@anarcat.dyndns.org> To: FreeBSD-gnats-submit@freebsd.org Subject: ports/29615: sdl 1.0 and 1.2 ports install duplicate m4 files Message-ID: <20010810225426.C293720AE3@shall.anarcat.dyndns.org>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>Number: 29615
>Category: ports
>Synopsis: sdl 1.0 and 1.2 ports install duplicate m4 files
>Confidential: no
>Severity: critical
>Priority: high
>Responsible: freebsd-ports
>State: open
>Quarter:
>Keywords:
>Date-Required:
>Class: sw-bug
>Submitter-Id: current-users
>Arrival-Date: Fri Aug 10 16:00:04 PDT 2001
>Closed-Date:
>Last-Modified:
>Originator: The Anarcat
>Release: FreeBSD 4.3-STABLE i386
>Organization:
Nada, Inc.
>Environment:
System: FreeBSD shall.anarcat.dyndns.org 4.3-STABLE FreeBSD 4.3-STABLE #2: Wed Aug 1 18:58:23 EDT 2001 anarcat@shall.anarcat.dyndns.org:/usr/src/sys/compile/SHALL i386
Recent ports collection (updated 08.08.2001.05:03)
>Description:
When compiling mutt-devel, I had the following error:
(cd /usr/ports/mail/mutt-devel/work/mutt-1.3.20; aclocal -I m4)
aclocal: /usr/local/share/aclocal/sdl11.m4: 11: duplicated macro
`AM_PATH_SDL'
Now I don't know... sdl11.m4 is installed by the 1.2.2 sdl port, which
is weird because the filename would rather be sdl12.m4 then. :) Anyways,
why doesn't this port (1.2.2) just install sdl.m4 instead?
>How-To-Repeat:
"Configure" the mutt-devel port or more genericly (sp?):
$ aclocal -I m4
>Fix:
Workaround: rm /usr/local/share/aclocal/sdl11.m4
It might not be exactly right though, because the sdl12 makefile tells
us:
post-configure:
@cd ${WRKSRC} && \
${CP} sdl-config sdl11-config && \
${CP} sdl.m4 sdl11.m4
@${PERL} -pi -e
's|^deplibs_check_method=.*|deplibs_check_method=pass_al
l|' \
${WRKSRC}/libtool
which is the reason why there is a sdl11.m4 in the first place.
Now the files (sdl.m4 and sdl11.m4) are almost identical:
--- /usr/local/share/aclocal/sdl.m4 Fri Aug 10 01:58:39 2001
+++ /root/sdl11.m4 Fri Aug 10 18:31:58 2001
@@ -140,6 +140,11 @@
AC_TRY_LINK([
#include <stdio.h>
#include "SDL.h"
+
+int main(int argc, char *argv[])
+{ return 0; }
+#undef main
+#define main K_and_R_C_main
], [ return 0; ],
[ echo "*** The test program compiled, but did not run. This
usually means"
echo "*** that the run-time linker is not finding SDL or
finding the wrong"
anarcat@shall [sdl12]$
I guess we could patch sdl.m4 in the sdl10 port to be the same as
sdl11.m4 and scrap the sdl11.m4 idea altogether. Anyways, they define
the same macros and if 2 sdl are installed (which is possible), we're
screwed.
I marked this as kinda "high priority" and "critical" because it can
screw up a lot of builds. :)
For the record:
anarcat@shall [sdl12]$ less /var/db/pkg/sdl-1.0.8_1/+REQUIRED_BY
QuakeForge-0.1.1
anarcat@shall [sdl12]$ less /var/db/pkg/sdl-1.2.2/+REQUIRED_BY
xmps-0.2.0
xmps-opendivx-plugin-0.0.1
xmps-win32-plugin-0.0.4
anarcat@shall [sdl12]$
>Release-Note:
>Audit-Trail:
>Unformatted:
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20010810225426.C293720AE3>