You are not logged in.

#26 2018-09-28 12:04:40

Lone_Wolf
Member
From: Netherlands, Europe
Registered: 2005-10-04
Posts: 6,429

Re: [Solved] orbit2 fails to build due to missing file

as you know Google personalizes the search results so "my" Google seems to be different than "your" Google.

When you want/need reliable results :
use a searchengine that doesn't personalise results (like duckduckgo)
or one that uses a search portal that acesses google without any personalised details . StartPage is one of them.


Multi-init booting with apg Openrc and systemd coexisting
Automounting : not needed, i prefer pmount
Aur helpers : makepkg + my own local repo === rarely need them

Offline

#27 2018-09-28 18:38:29

PhotonX
Member
From: Munich
Registered: 2008-08-10
Posts: 493

Re: [Solved] orbit2 fails to build due to missing file

Yeah, I use Duckduckgo but unfortunately very frequently I end up switching to Google (using the !g flag) because the latter produces better search results. Sad but true - at least in my experience...


Desktop: http://www.sysprofile.de/id15562, Arch Linux    |    Notebook: Thinkpad X200 Tablet, Manjaro

The very worst thing you can do with free software is to download it, see that it doesn't work for some reason, leave it, and tell your friends that it doesn't work.  -  Tuomas Lukka

Offline

#28 2018-09-28 19:37:35

eschwartz
Trusted User/Bug Wrangler
Registered: 2014-08-08
Posts: 2,543

Re: [Solved] orbit2 fails to build due to missing file

PhotonX wrote:

Well, the first thing I did was googling the error message. Don't ask me why this bug report and commit log didn't show up in my search results - as you know Google personalizes the search results so "my" Google seems to be different than "your" Google. I only found the forum thread I linked in my initial post and I followed what people proposed there. As of the upstream bug report, I didn't expect people to fix bugs in such an ancient piece of software, in particular since building worked fine for many years and seemed to have got broken after some recent update. I am actually quite surprised that the bug is fixed upstream but the fix isn't part of the former official Arch package (it has been removed from the Arch repos in 2017).

The problem is an unreliable dependency graph which results in the package being "sometimes" broken, depending on your compilation environment, specifically the phase of the moon plus whether you use make -j1. Properly non-parallel builds would work fine.

PhotonX wrote:

Of course. I asked for help just hours after pushing the temporary fix. My primary objective when pushing the temporary fix was to have something functional available as fast as possible. I am actually really happy that I got help so quickly but I couldn't be sure that things will go that way. In worst case, I would wait for a reply for several days, the package being broken for all that time.

I'd like to reiterate that your "temporary fix" was not actually a fix *at all*, besides which it broke the unwritten rules by uploading binary artifacts to the AUR. All because you felt that the most important thing of all, more important than asking for help, was to ensure the package was successfully tar'ed into a pacman package (but making no observation as to whether the resulting binary works).

The point I am trying to make here, is that it would be nice, if people actually focused on quality rather than sheer quality. Don't *lie to the build system*, should be your first rule  -- because it is almost sure to be wrong, and "it compiles" is not proof positive that it actually does what it's supposed to. If it's not the complete failure to work as expected on any non-x86_64 system, it will be the fact that user CFLAGS which differ from yours can result in *really* weird issues.

It's no more a crime to say "I'm trying to figure out a fix" and leave it broken for *one day*, than it is to ask for help in general. What is your rush to fix it incorrectly... avoiding a bad reputation for having packages with a 24-hour "downtime"?

...

Anyway, thanks for finally fixing it properly.


Managing AUR repos The Right Way -- aurpublish (now a standalone tool)

Offline

#29 2018-09-28 20:22:35

7314776
Member
Registered: 2018-09-27
Posts: 5

Re: [Solved] orbit2 fails to build due to missing file

Eschwartz wrote:

All because you felt that the most important thing of all, more important than asking for help, was to ensure the package was successfully tar'ed into a pacman

Still giving credits to PhotonX efforts in keeping things alive, I owe apologies to Eschwartz as I was the one who seemed the situation was embarrassing.

Thanks Eschwartz for the way and glitsj16 for explaining how to follow it (for me, in fact, for explaining that the former post was the way, not a grievance).

P.S. Lone_Wolf thanks for your efforts in making clean chroot.

P.P.S. ver.7 builds fine.

Last edited by 7314776 (2018-09-28 20:26:09)

Offline

#30 2018-09-29 15:55:32

vstuart
Member
From: Vancouver
Registered: 2016-04-12
Posts: 7

Re: [Solved] orbit2 fails to build due to missing file

I use Shutter, a lot, so I am indebted to those who maintain that package, orbit2, etc. -- as well (in the broader sense) Arch Linux itself.  Sincerest appreciation/thanks to all involved.

Last edited by vstuart (2018-09-29 15:56:27)

Offline

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB