[Emacs-bug-tracker] bug#7191: closed (Gnulib failing to compile on Ubuntu 10.10)

[GNU bug Tracking System]

Your message dated Wed, 13 Oct 2010 18:29:50 +0200
with message-id <address@hidden>
and subject line Re: bug#7191: Gnulib failing to compile on Ubuntu 10.10
has caused the GNU bug report #7191,
regarding Gnulib failing to compile on Ubuntu 10.10
to be marked as done.

(If you believe you have received this mail in error, please contact
address@hidden)


-- 
7191: http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=7191
GNU Bug Tracking System
Contact address@hidden with problems
> --- Begin Message ---
>
>
>
> Subject: 
>
> Gnulib failing to compile on Ubuntu 10.10
>
>
>
>
> Date: 
>
> Mon, 11 Oct 2010 18:18:20 -0500
>
>
>
>
> The latest version of Ubuntu 10.10 is not building the Coreutils. It appears to fail due getopt. I ran:
> $ git pull
> $ make clean
> $ ./bootstrap
> $ ./configure
> $ make
>
> and get this error:
>   CC     xstrtoimax.o
> In file included from xstrtol.h:22,
>                  from xstrtol.c:31,
>                  from xstrtoimax.c:6:
> ./getopt.h:196: error: redefinition of 'struct option'
> ./getopt.h:242: error: conflicting types for 'getopt_long'
> /usr/include/getopt.h:175: note: previous declaration of 'getopt_long' was here
> ./getopt.h:246: error: conflicting types for 'getopt_long_only'
> /usr/include/getopt.h:179: note: previous declaration of 'getopt_long_only' was here
> make[4]: *** [xstrtoimax.o] Error 1
>
> I can try to solve it, but I'm a pretty bad programmer (maybe someday that will change), so most likely someone else will solve it before I do.
>
> William
>
> P.S. Here is my gcc version:
> $ gcc --version
> gcc (Ubuntu/Linaro 4.4.4-14ubuntu5) 4.4.5
>
>
>
> --- End Message ---
> --- Begin Message ---
>
>
>
> Subject: 
>
> Re: bug#7191: Gnulib failing to compile on Ubuntu 10.10
>
>
>
>
> Date: 
>
> Wed, 13 Oct 2010 18:29:50 +0200
>
>
>
>
> William Plusnick wrote:
> > It seems that just removing my local repository and cloning it again fixed the
> > problem. I wonder if a local change didn't get removed correctly from an old
> > local branch or something?
> >
> > In short, the problem seems to have been a local issue and now builds/passes 
> > the
> > tests. Sorry for the false alarm.
>
> Thanks for letting us know.
> I'm closing this ticket.
>
>
> --- End Message ---