Apparently, though unproven, at 20:45 on Friday 29 October 2010, Mick did 
opine thusly:

> I noticed this error with the autoheader as shown below:
> 
>  * Applying xulrunner-1.9.2-gtk+-2.21.patch ...                         [
> ok ] * Running eautoreconf in '/var/tmp/portage/www-
> client/firefox-3.6.12/work/mozilla-1.9.2' ...
>  * Running autoconf ...                                                 [
> ok ] * Running autoheader ...                                             
>  [ !! ] 


You don't mention the version. With that firefox, I assume xulrunner-1.9.2.12 
right?

I'm running that here on amd64 too and it all works fine. If it breaks 
something, it's not visible to me at this point.





>  * Running elibtoolize in:
> mozilla-1.9.2/ipc/chromium/src/third_party/libevent/
>  *   Applying install-sh-1.5.patch ...
>  *   Applying portage-1.5.10.patch ...
>  *   Applying sed-1.5.6.patch ...
>  *   Applying as-needed-1.5.26.patch ...
>  * Running elibtoolize in: mozilla-1.9.2/js/ctypes/libffi/
>  *   Applying install-sh-1.5.4.patch ...
>  *   Applying portage-1.5.10.patch ...
>  *   Applying sed-1.5.6.patch ...
>  *   Applying as-needed-1.5.26.patch ...
>  *   Applying uclibc-ltconf-1.3.0.patch ...
>  * Running elibtoolize in: mozilla-1.9.2/modules/freetype2/builds/unix/
>  *   Applying portage-2.2.patch ...
>  *   Applying sed-1.5.6.patch ...
>  *   Applying as-needed-2.2.6.patch ...
>  * Running elibtoolize in: mozilla-1.9.2/toolkit/crashreporter/google-
> breakpad/autotools/
>  *   Applying portage-2.2.patch ...
>  *   Applying sed-1.5.6.patch ...
>  *   Applying as-needed-2.2.6.patch ...
>  * Running eautoreconf in '/var/tmp/portage/www-
> client/firefox-3.6.12/work/mozilla-1.9.2/js/src' ...
> * Running autoconf ...                                                  [
> ok ] * Running autoheader ...                                             
>  [ !! ]
> 
> >>> Source prepared.
> 
> This is an amd64 box.  I can't recall seeing the same on a x86 machine
> earlier in the week - but may have just missed it.
> 
> Is it important?

-- 
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com

Reply via email to