UPower with GNOME 2.32

DJ Lucas dj at linuxfromscratch.org
Sun Oct 3 21:03:50 PDT 2010

On 10/03/2010 06:23 PM, Duncan Baynes wrote:
>   On 4/10/2010 10:10 AM, DJ Lucas wrote:
>> On 10/03/2010 04:46 PM, Duncan Baynes wrote:
>>> Is anyone having problems getting upower to compile when building GNOME
>>> 2.32?
>>> I'm getting the following error:
>>> make[2]: Entering directory `/usr/src/UPower-0.9.1/libupower-glib'
>>>    CC     libupower_glib_la-up-types.lo
>>>    CC     libupower_glib_la-up-client.lo
>>>    CC     libupower_glib_la-up-wakeups.lo
>>>    CC     libupower_glib_la-up-qos-item.lo
>>>    CC     libupower_glib_la-up-wakeup-item.lo
>>>    CC     libupower_glib_la-up-stats-item.lo
>>>    CC     libupower_glib_la-up-history-item.lo
>>>    CC     libupower_glib_la-up-device.lo
>>>    CCLD   libupower-glib.la
>>>    GISCAN UPowerGlib-1.0.gir
>>> Namespace is empty; likely causes are:
>>> * Not including .h files to be scanned
>>> * Broken --identifier-prefix
>>> make[2]: *** [UPowerGlib-1.0.gir] Error 1
>> Unfortunately, I haven't gotten that far with it yet. I've been terribly
>> busy. I should be hacking on it myself by tomorrow evening. Are you
>> building in an alternate prefix or in /usr? If the optional prefix, I
>> would be looking for things in the libexec dir or the quick
>> goboject-introspection post release version of 0.9.8 (only blind stabs
>> in the dark--I don't have the slightest clue why introspection was
>> released so quickly).  If not, I'll be caught up with you tomorrow
>> evening or Tuesday evening.
> I'm using the default prefix and also opted for gobject-introspection 
> 0.9.8 from the start in case there was a compelling reason for the quick 
> update.

Actually, looks like bad advice I gave.  This check was added to
gobject-introspection on Septermber 29th.  This likely means that upower
is actually broken in some (minor?) way.


I'd roll back to a previous version of upower, or roll back to
GOI-0.9.7, while waiting for a fixed version of upower (or get to
hacking on upower (check upstream first)).  Problem with rolling back
GOI is that you'll potentially miss other 'broken' packages.

-- DJ Lucas

This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content, and is believed to be clean.

More information about the blfs-dev mailing list