backbuffer.h from zipios++ and problems
Forum rules
Be nice to others! Respect the FreeCAD code of conduct!
Be nice to others! Respect the FreeCAD code of conduct!
backbuffer.h from zipios++ and problems
Recent commit 1789c95 is causing problems on fedora builds. Not sure how's that on other linux distros, but the file backbuffer.h is not directly available on fedora. I'm trying to find out if that's a fedora problem or the file should not be used directly.
Any advice would be appreciated.
commit 1789c957df9da486043cd211e723c6fbc060f236
Author: wmayer <wmayer@users.sourceforge.net>
Date: Mon Sep 5 18:53:37 2022 +0200
P.S. Looks like it's OK on ubuntu, so it might be a fedora problem
Any advice would be appreciated.
commit 1789c957df9da486043cd211e723c6fbc060f236
Author: wmayer <wmayer@users.sourceforge.net>
Date: Mon Sep 5 18:53:37 2022 +0200
P.S. Looks like it's OK on ubuntu, so it might be a fedora problem
Re: backbuffer.h from zipios++ and problems
I know that developers are clever, but:
- Are you compiling from source ?
- what version of library are you using?
backbuffer.hpp is present in the source code (hoping the page is correct).
https://github.com/Zipios/Zipios
But as the library as some different versions, according to:
https://zipios.sourceforge.io/
I don't know old versions, (I'm using Arch Linux and there are even the 0.1.5.9 from 2007).
Github page contains some informations about requisites to compile the library, maybe it will be helpful, maybe not.
This could be a common problem, as example in Debian derivatives, "big packages" are divided in "library" and "library-dev" parts, and sometimes even in "library-doc", or "library-dev" is splitted in two or many packages for some reason (good or bad I can't judge).
Fedora is know to be "conservative" about library versions, so probably some library is not "up to date" and is using an "old version", or maybe some development library are not installed.
Probably suppling some version data about what library you are using could help developers to supply some more "centered" advices.
Hope it helps.
Regards
Carlo D.
GitHub page: https://github.com/onekk/freecad-doc.
- In deep articles on FreeCAD.
- Learning how to model with scripting.
- Various other stuffs.
Blog: https://okkmkblog.wordpress.com/
- In deep articles on FreeCAD.
- Learning how to model with scripting.
- Various other stuffs.
Blog: https://okkmkblog.wordpress.com/
Re: backbuffer.h from zipios++ and problems
Does it work for you if you drop this line
Code: Select all
#include <zipios++/backbuffer.h>
If fedora doesn't provide this file where is the class zipios::BackBuffer declared, then?
Re: backbuffer.h from zipios++ and problems
Compilation from spec ffile, the rest packaged. Build log: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud. ... ive.log.gz
zipios++ x86_64 0.1.5.9-28.fc36
I'm testing the build without the backbuffer.h. The file is on the source, but it's not packaged into zipios++-devel for some reason.
The https://github.com/Zipios/Zipios contains backbuffer.hpp, FreeCAD needs backbuffer.h
I'm testing bundled zipios++ for now. It starts to look like a fedora packaging error.
zipios++ x86_64 0.1.5.9-28.fc36
I'm testing the build without the backbuffer.h. The file is on the source, but it's not packaged into zipios++-devel for some reason.
The https://github.com/Zipios/Zipios contains backbuffer.hpp, FreeCAD needs backbuffer.h
I'm testing bundled zipios++ for now. It starts to look like a fedora packaging error.
Re: backbuffer.h from zipios++ and problems
The easiest thing to do is to use the zipios++ that is already in the source.
Just pass the right parameter to rpmbuil or mock
From specs file:
In the latest versions of freecad you have to add to freecad.specs :
PathApp
and qt5-qtwebengine-devel
Then if we want to use a dirty trick we can force internal zipios++
With these changes I made the build of freecad-0.21-pre_30890.fc36.x86_64
Just pass the right parameter to rpmbuil or mock
From specs file:
Code: Select all
rpmbuild --with=bundled_zipios: use bundled version of zipios++
PathApp
Code: Select all
# Maintainers: keep this list of plugins up to date
# List plugins in %%{_libdir}/%{name}/lib, less '.so' and 'Gui.so', here
%global plugins Fem FreeCAD .... PathApp
Code: Select all
BuildRequires: qt5-qtwebengine-devel
Code: Select all
%global bundled_zipios %{?_with_bundled_zipios: 1} %{?!_with_bundled_zipios: 1}
Re: backbuffer.h from zipios++ and problems
Thank ypu! I'll be back home next week and then I'll test it.
Re: backbuffer.h from zipios++ and problems
However, not only backbuffer.h is missing, but also zipios_common.h.
I have re builded zipios++0.1.5.9-28.fc36.x86_64 copying the missing files from src in zipios++ and adding them to the makefie as well.
This way I can use zipio++ external of fedora 36 but it is certainly not the best way
I have re builded zipios++0.1.5.9-28.fc36.x86_64 copying the missing files from src in zipios++ and adding them to the makefie as well.
This way I can use zipio++ external of fedora 36 but it is certainly not the best way
Re: backbuffer.h from zipios++ and problems
Can you post the spec file you used? I want to take credit for your work
Re: backbuffer.h from zipios++ and problems
to be able to build in fedora 37 you need to further modify the SPEC file as follows:
Code: Select all
%if 0%{?fedora} < 37
BuildRequires: libusb-devel
%else
BuildRequires: libusb1-devel
%endif
Re: backbuffer.h from zipios++ and problems
Nope, still zipios header missing. https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs ... d/5079489/
Even after forcing the built-in zipios. Unless the forcing didn't work for COPR...
That's the spce file: https://github.com/PrzemoF/FreeCAD/blob ... eecad.spec
Can you compare it with your please?
Even after forcing the built-in zipios. Unless the forcing didn't work for COPR...
That's the spce file: https://github.com/PrzemoF/FreeCAD/blob ... eecad.spec
Can you compare it with your please?