[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Build system "problems" still unresolved



Hi Jérôme,

Am Mo, 2003-09-01 um 13.22 schrieb Jérôme Warnier:
> This is exactly the problem:
> /home/jwarnier/debian/ooo/openoffice.org-1.0.99+1.1rc3/vcl/unx/source/src
> ...
> /home/jwarnier/debian/ooo/openoffice.org-1.0.99+1.1rc3/vcl/unx/source/gdi/native-msgbox
> ------------------------------
> Making: ../../../../unxlngi4.pro/misc/salgdimsgbox.dpc
> dmake subdmake=true  -f makefile.mk instsetext="" depend=t ALLDPC
> ------------------------------
> No Dependencies
> -------------
> setenv UGLY_HACK_INDEED "/LD_LIBRARY_PATH"; \
>         unsetenv LD_LIBRARY_PATH; \
>         gcc-3.0 `pkg-config --cflags gtk+-2.0` `pkg-config --libs
> gtk+-2.0` -o ../../../../unxlngi4.pro/bin/msgbox-gnome msgbox.c; \
>         setenv LD_LIBRARY_PATH "/UGLY_HACK_INDEED"
> pkg-config: error while loading shared libraries: libfakeroot.so.0:
> cannot open shared object file: No such file or directory
> pkg-config: error while loading shared libraries: libfakeroot.so.0:
> cannot open shared object file: No such file or directory
> gcc-3.0: error while loading shared libraries: libfakeroot.so.0: cannot
> open shared object file: No such file or directory
> /home/jwarnier/debian/ooo/openoffice.org-1.0.99+1.1rc3/vcl/source/control

So it's obviously a fakeroot bug/incompatibility, as Rene said.

A hack to have the files built manually would look like:

#this is the directory with the failed build
cd openoffice.org-1.0.99+1.1rc3
source LinuxIntelEnv.Set.sh
cd vcl
build
deliver
cd ..
rm debian/stampdir/instsetoo
dpkg-buildpackage -nc -b <<What you normally use here>>

Of course, this is untested.

> > > - // building is still not possible, yet could be really useful (can I
> > > do something to help with this? Can I try and tell where it breaks?)
> > 
> > Hah. I had to see your // symbol so many times until I realized that it
> > means parallel. I'm sure that the tools.openoffice.org people want to know
> > where parallel compiling breaks.
> Well, it seems to me // always represent parallelism, but maybe your
> understanding is different?

The first thing that comes to mind are C++ or Java comments ;-)

What we wrote for parallel in geometry classes looked more like ||. (But
that looks like an OR ;-) 

Regards,
	Martin



Reply to: