xfce4-panel build failure

[tommy.bollman@…]

This is more of a reminder to you, as I see nothing has been done since 24/12/2011,and I have to sit and uninstall a whole lot manually

[ryandesign (Ryan Carsten Schmidt)]

I'm not sure I understand the summary or description of your ticket. What are you trying to bypass? What are you reminding us of? What are you having to uninstall and why?

[tommy.bollman@…]

I did a sudo port upgrade, and it fails on xfce4-panel, and I cant deactivate it.

I try to deinstall all of it's dependents, but it repeats again and again.

I also tried to deactivate it with "Porticus", but Porticus, has also stopped to work, (latest version).

All this is due to trying to install todotxt that didn't install properly either.

Cheers!

Tommy

[tommy.bollman@…]

Hello!

I ran sudo port self update again, then I ran sudo port upgrade outdated. If failed in the build of the xcfe-panel again.

Here is the output from the log: it fails when calling nice because it thinks it is not tty :

:error:build org.macports.build for port xfce4-panel returned: command execution failed
:debug:build Error code: CHILDSTATUS 6944 2
:debug:build Backtrace: command execution failed
    while executing
"system -nice 0 $fullcmdstring"
    ("eval" body line 1)
    invoked from within
"eval system $notty $nice \$fullcmdstring"
    invoked from within
"command_exec build"
    (procedure "portbuild::build_main" line 8)
    invoked from within
"$procedure $targetname"
:info:build Warning: targets not executed for xfce4-panel: org.macports.activate org.macports.build org.macports.destroot org.macports.install
:notice:build Please see the log file for port xfce4-panel for details:

How do I precede, to bypass this?

Cheers!

Tommy

[jmroot (Joshua Root)]

If you don't want to upgrade xfce4-panel, don't specify it or its dependents in your upgrade command. It would probably help us to fix the actual problem if you were to attach the log.

[cooljeanius (Eric Gallager)]

Cc Me!

[ryandesign (Ryan Carsten Schmidt)]

Duplicate of #32651, I assume; the actual error message was never provided.