Install error OOo-1.1.3 on 4.10p3

[Don Lewis]

On 21 Oct, Benjamin Thelen wrote:
> Don Lewis wrote:
>> On 20 Oct, Benjamin Thelen wrote:
>> 
>>>Hi lists,
>>>
>>>I am now really stumped and appreciate you for your assistance. I had 
>>>this very error already with OOo-1.1.2 on three 4.10p2 FreeBSD boxes 
>>>in the end of August, posted it to the list, but got no answer. I got 
>>>along by installing a 1.1.0 package and hoped that this error will be 
>>>solved in future ports.
>>>
>>>
>>>Compiling seems alright. This error-message occurs right after "make 
>>>install".
>>>
>>>#
>>># UGLY hack to not have to specify a X-Display.
>>>#
>>>/usr/X11R6/bin/Xvfb :1001 -screen 0 800x600x24 > /dev/null 2>&1 & echo 
>>>$! > /data/ports/editors/openoffice-1.1/work/.Xvfb.pid
>>>cd: can't cd to 
>>>/data/ports/editors/openoffice-1.1/work/OOo_1.1.3_src/instsetoo/
>>>*.pro/01/normal/
>>>*** Error code 2
>>>Stop in /data/ports/editors/openoffice-1.1.
>> 
>> 
>> No problems here building and installing on 4.10-STABLE, though in my
>> case $DISPLAY is set so my build didn't use Xvfb.
> 
> Hi Down,
> thanks for your reply.
> 
> Well, I did not decide to use Xvfb. Did not know there is such a variable.

Some parts of the OpenOffice build want to access an X11 server.  If you
are running the build in a terminal window under X11, $DISPLAY should be
automatically set.  If $DISPLAY isn't set, the Makefile for the port
will start Xvfb, which is an X11 server for a virtual frame buffer.  In
my case, $DISPLAY is set because I'm doing the build in an xterm window.

>>  That shouldn't
>> matter, though because the directory passed to the cd command appears to
>> be the same in either case:
>> 	${WRKSRC}/instsetoo/*.pro/${LANG_EXT}/normal/
>> 
>> I wonder if you ran into some sort of build problem that didn't get
>> caught.  The end of the build should look like:
>> 
>> 	Replacing ${PRODUCTNAME} with OpenOffice.org
>> 	Replacing ${PRODUCTVERSION} with 1.1.3
>> 	
>> 	time needed: 0:1:0
>> 
>> 
>> 	WARNING! Project(s):
>> 	gtk
>> 	
>> 	not found and couldn't be built. Correct build.lsts.
> 
> 
> 
> I now remember again, I saw that ending on a posting some time ago. No 
> mine looks really different (that is how it allways looked):
> 
> 
> then mv -f ".deps/rulparse.Tpo" ".deps/rulparse.Po"; \
> else rm -f ".deps/rulparse.Tpo"; exit 1; \
> fi
> if gcc32 -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -I. -I. -I. -I. -I./unix/linux -I./unix 
> -I./unix/li nux/gnu     -g -O2 -MT percent.o -MD -MP -MF 
> ".deps/percent.Tpo" \  -c -o percent.o `test -f 'percent.c' || echo 
> './'`percent.c; \ then mv -f ".deps/percent.Tpo" ".deps/percent.Po"; \
> else rm -f ".deps/percent.Tpo"; exit 1; \
> fi
> if gcc32 -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -I. -I. -I. -I. -I./unix/linux -I./unix 
> -I./unix/linux/gnu     -g -O2 -MT function.o -MD -MP -MF 
> ".deps/function.Tpo" \  -c -o function.o `test -f 'function.c' || echo 
> './'`function.c; \ then mv -f ".deps/function.Tpo" 
> ".deps/function.Po"; \ else rm -f ".deps/function.Tpo"; exit 1; \
> fi
> gcc32  -g -O2   -o dmake  infer.o make.o stat.o expand.o dmstring.o 
> hash.o dag.o
>   dmake.o path.o imacs.o sysintf.o parse.o getinp.o quit.o state.o 
> dmdump.o macpa
> rse.o rulparse.o percent.o function.o unix/libunix.a
> gmake[2]: Leaving directory 
> `/data/ports/editors/openoffice-1.1/work/OOo_1.1.3
> rc/dmake'
> gmake[1]: Leaving directory 
> `/data/ports/editors/openoffice-1.1/work/OOo_1.1.3_s
> rc/dmake'
> dmake has been successfully built

Your build appears to be terminating way too early.  I see the matching
output about 21% of the way through my successful portupgrade run.


gcc32  -g -O2   -o dmake  infer.o make.o stat.o expand.o dmstring.o hash.o dag.o
 dmake.o path.o imacs.o sysintf.o parse.o getinp.o quit.o state.o dmdump.o macpa
rse.o rulparse.o percent.o function.o unix/libunix.a 
gmake[2]: Leaving directory `/scratch/usr/ports/editors/openoffice-1.1/work/OOo_
1.1.3_src/dmake'
gmake[1]: Leaving directory `/scratch/usr/ports/editors/openoffice-1.1/work/OOo_
1.1.3_src/dmake'

dmake has been successfully built
build -- version: 1.86.18.2
Checking dmake...

=============
Building project x11_extensions
=============
deliver -- version: 1.50.8.8
COPY: build.lst -> /scratch/usr/ports/editors/openoffice-1.1/work/OOo_1.1.3_src/
solver/645/unxfbsd.pro/inc/x11_extensions/build.lst



>> 
>> Do you still have the work directory around?  If so, can you look under
>> /data/ports/editors/openoffice-1.1/work/OOo_1.1.3_src/instsetoo/ to see
>> what is missing?
> 
> Yes. There are the following folders in .../instsettoo:
> 
> CVS
> prj
> util
> 
> 
> No ".../instsettoo/*.pro/01/normal/".

This appears to get created near the end of the build.

Replacing ${PRODUCTVERSION} with 1.1.3

time needed: 0:0:59
mkdir -p ../unxfbsd.pro/01/normal
rm -f ../unxfbsd.pro/01/normal/*
rm: No match.
lzip -p . -e ../unxfbsd.pro/misc/lzip.log -l 01 -f openoffice.lst -d ../unxfbsd.
pro/01 -n OfficeOSL -e ../unxfbsd.pro/01/Logfile.txt -C ../unxfbsd.pro/01/checks
ums.txt

Local Script Particel Zip (c) 2000 Sun Microsystems


>> 
>> 
>> It looks like there is a problem on the next line of the Makefile,
>> though.
>> 
>> do-install:
>> .if !defined(DISPLAY)
>>         #
>>         # UGLY hack to not have to specify a X-Display.
>>         #
>>         ${X11BASE}/bin/Xvfb :1001 -screen 0 800x600x24 > /dev/null 2>&1 & ${ECHO
>> } $$! > ${WRKDIR}/.Xvfb.pid
>>         @sleep 5
>>         @cd ${WRKSRC}/instsetoo/*.pro/${LANG_EXT}/normal/ ; \
>> ===>    SAL_IGNOREXERRORS=1 TEMP=${WRKDIR} DISPLAY=${DISPLAY} ./install --prefix
>> =${PREFIX}
>>         @-${CAT} ${WRKDIR}/.Xvfb.pid | ${XARGS} kill
>>         @${RM} -f ${WRKDIR}/.Xvfb.pid
>> 
>> I think "DISPLAY=${DISPLAY}" is incorrect because DISPLAY is not
>> defined.  Judging by another place in the Makefile where Xvfb is used, I
>> think this should be "DISPLAY=${DISPLAYHACK}".
>> 
>> 
> 
> I can see what you mean, but I'm absolutely not enough in such 
> "Makefile-things". I've just changed it and building OOo again. But 
> it'll take an hour. I'll tell (tomorrow).

That's way too fast ...  It takes more than 13 hours on my 1.113 GHZ
Pentium III.

> But, what is obvious, that the end of OOo buildings looks so different!?
> 
> 
> Thanks very much,
> Ben
> 
> 
> 
>