1 |
Apparently, though unproven, at 20:45 on Friday 29 October 2010, Mick did |
2 |
opine thusly: |
3 |
|
4 |
> I noticed this error with the autoheader as shown below: |
5 |
> |
6 |
> * Applying xulrunner-1.9.2-gtk+-2.21.patch ... [ |
7 |
> ok ] * Running eautoreconf in '/var/tmp/portage/www- |
8 |
> client/firefox-3.6.12/work/mozilla-1.9.2' ... |
9 |
> * Running autoconf ... [ |
10 |
> ok ] * Running autoheader ... |
11 |
> [ !! ] |
12 |
|
13 |
|
14 |
You don't mention the version. With that firefox, I assume xulrunner-1.9.2.12 |
15 |
right? |
16 |
|
17 |
I'm running that here on amd64 too and it all works fine. If it breaks |
18 |
something, it's not visible to me at this point. |
19 |
|
20 |
|
21 |
|
22 |
|
23 |
|
24 |
> * Running elibtoolize in: |
25 |
> mozilla-1.9.2/ipc/chromium/src/third_party/libevent/ |
26 |
> * Applying install-sh-1.5.patch ... |
27 |
> * Applying portage-1.5.10.patch ... |
28 |
> * Applying sed-1.5.6.patch ... |
29 |
> * Applying as-needed-1.5.26.patch ... |
30 |
> * Running elibtoolize in: mozilla-1.9.2/js/ctypes/libffi/ |
31 |
> * Applying install-sh-1.5.4.patch ... |
32 |
> * Applying portage-1.5.10.patch ... |
33 |
> * Applying sed-1.5.6.patch ... |
34 |
> * Applying as-needed-1.5.26.patch ... |
35 |
> * Applying uclibc-ltconf-1.3.0.patch ... |
36 |
> * Running elibtoolize in: mozilla-1.9.2/modules/freetype2/builds/unix/ |
37 |
> * Applying portage-2.2.patch ... |
38 |
> * Applying sed-1.5.6.patch ... |
39 |
> * Applying as-needed-2.2.6.patch ... |
40 |
> * Running elibtoolize in: mozilla-1.9.2/toolkit/crashreporter/google- |
41 |
> breakpad/autotools/ |
42 |
> * Applying portage-2.2.patch ... |
43 |
> * Applying sed-1.5.6.patch ... |
44 |
> * Applying as-needed-2.2.6.patch ... |
45 |
> * Running eautoreconf in '/var/tmp/portage/www- |
46 |
> client/firefox-3.6.12/work/mozilla-1.9.2/js/src' ... |
47 |
> * Running autoconf ... [ |
48 |
> ok ] * Running autoheader ... |
49 |
> [ !! ] |
50 |
> |
51 |
> >>> Source prepared. |
52 |
> |
53 |
> This is an amd64 box. I can't recall seeing the same on a x86 machine |
54 |
> earlier in the week - but may have just missed it. |
55 |
> |
56 |
> Is it important? |
57 |
|
58 |
-- |
59 |
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com |