Opened 10 years ago

Closed 10 years ago

#4494 closed Bug (invalid)

transmission v. 240b1 compilation error

Reported by: leandroong Owned by:
Priority: Normal Milestone: None Set
Component: Transmission Version: 2.33+
Severity: Normal Keywords:
Cc:

Description

Compiling under ubuntu. see file attached version: 2.40b1

Attachments (1)

transmission-compilation-error.txt (25.7 KB) - added by leandroong 10 years ago.
ubuntu transmission compilation error

Download all attachments as: .zip

Change History (3)

Changed 10 years ago by leandroong

ubuntu transmission compilation error

comment:1 Changed 10 years ago by livings124

  • Version changed from 2.33 to 2.33+

comment:2 Changed 10 years ago by jordan

  • Resolution set to invalid
  • Status changed from new to closed
378	if test -n "/home/leandroong/optware/ddwrt/sources/transmission/int64_switch.patch" ; \
379	                then cat /home/leandroong/optware/ddwrt/sources/transmission/int64_switch.patch | \
380	                patch -d /home/leandroong/optware/ddwrt/builds/transmission-2.40b1 -p0 ; \
381	        fi
382	patching file daemon/remote.c
383	Hunk #1 FAILED at 1337.
384	1 out of 1 hunk FAILED -- saving rejects to file daemon/remote.c.rej
385	make: *** [/home/leandroong/optware/ddwrt/builds/transmission/.configured] Error 1
386	leandroong@leandroong-VirtualBox:~/optware/ddwrt$ 

Hmm, this is new to me. Thanks for reporting this.

The patch that's failing here appears to be a downstream one being applied by ipkg -- it's not coming from the Transmission development team. This is the first time I've heard of this patch.

Googing for the name "int64_switch.patch", it seems that http://forum.qnap.com/viewtopic.php?f=85&t=10607&p=48889#p48889 is its source -- it works around a gcc 3.4.4 bug that couldn't handle a 64-bit integral type in a switch statement.

IMO this is not a great patch -- an easier and safer one would have been replacing "switch( tag )" with "switch( (int)tag )" -- but more to the point, gcc 4.5 or so now. Is this patch even necessary anymore?

So, to sum up:

  1. this issue should be reported to the ipkg maintainers, since they're introducing this diff.
  2. they should decide if the patch is even necessary anymore.
  3. if the patch is to be kept, I would recommend keeping it simple as described above.
  4. they should be aware that upstream's happy to work with them. If future issues crop up, they might want to open a ticket so that upstream will know.
Note: See TracTickets for help on using tickets.