Hi all,
On Fri, 2005-05-20 at 13:04 -0700, Chris Roat wrote:
> I made it past the previous errors (I think correctly). But I ran up
> against issues with the debian make scripts after the build completed.
>
> Chris
>
>
> find debian/tmp -name "CVS" | xargs rm -fr
> find debian/tmp -name ".cvsignore" | xargs rm -fr
> ./debian/rules pkglists
> *** Warning *** Unknown package root-plugin-asimage - please
> update ./build/package/lib/makebuilddepend.sh
This is because someone commented out the line that reads
*asimage) echo -n ", libafterimage-dev" ;;
in the above mentioned script. That is _not_ the right way to disable the package. It is outlined in `build/package/debian/README.Debian' how to add a package. To remove a package, do the inverse! In fact, the only thing one needs to do to disable a package, is to comment out the line
test "x$enable_foo" = "xyes" && pkglist="$pkglist root-plugin-foo"
in `configure'.
> cp: cannot stat `debian/tmp/usr/lib/root/libXrdSec.so.4': No such file
> or directory
> dh_install: command returned error code 256
Hmm. This error puzzles me. Maybe the XRootd guys changed something. Digging ... Ah, it seems the patch I sent some time ago to actually include the version number in the so name for the shared libraries of XRootd didn't make it into the official branch. Hmm. OK, a patch is attached.
>
> On 5/20/05, Chris Roat <chris.roat_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I appreciate you all checking into this. I believed
> Stanislav's changes were for against the production version,
> and so they work for me. In addition to those changes, I
> commented out the asimage dependency from the build scripts
> and tried again.
Arg! No. That's not the way to do it. If you want to build the `root-plugin-asimage' package, using the libAfterImage shipped with ROOT, you should edit `build/package/debian/rules' and take out `--disable-builtin-afterimage' from the `configure' command line.
> I encountered a couple more errors; see below. I was able to
> fix the first and last one by altering the casts from CARD8 to
> CARD32, but I don't have the expertise to handle the final two
> (lines 4582 & 4583). Any thoughts?
>
> Thanks,
> Chris
>
>
> g++ -O -I/usr/include/freetype2 -pipe -Wall -W
> -Woverloaded-virtual -fPIC -Iinclude -DHAVE_CONFIG -pthread
> -Iasimage/src/libAfterImage -o asimage/src/TASImage.o -c
> asimage/src/TASImage.cxx
> asimage/src/TASImage.cxx: In function `ASDrawContext*
> create_draw_context_argb32(ASImage*, ASDrawTool*)':
> asimage/src/TASImage.cxx:4578: error: cannot convert `CARD8*'
> to `CARD32*' in
> assignment
> asimage/src/TASImage.cxx:4582: error: invalid conversion from
> `void
> (*)(ASDrawContext*, int, int, int, unsigned char)' to `void
> (*)(ASDrawContext*, int, int, int, long unsigned int)'
The function prototype must have changed. A cast to the proper function prototype should do the trick.
fptr = ((*)(ASDrawContext*, int, int, int, long unsigned int))(f);
> asimage/src/TASImage.cxx:4583: error: invalid conversion from
> `void
> (*)(ASDrawContext*, int, int, unsigned char)' to `void
> (*)(ASDrawContext*,
> int, int, long unsigned int)'
Similar.
> asimage/src/TASImage.cxx: In member function `void
> TASImage::DrawWideLine(unsigned int, unsigned int, unsigned
> int, unsigned
> int, unsigned int, unsigned int)':
> asimage/src/TASImage.cxx:4612: error: cannot convert `CARD8*'
> to `CARD32*' in
> assignment
>
>
>
> On 5/20/05, Valeriy Onuchin <Valeri.Onoutchine_at_cern.ch> wrote:
> Hi Stanislav,
> your patch is not against the current CVS and
> important note -
> at the moment ROOT's version (located at
> asimage./src/) of libAfterImage
> is significantely different from "official"
> libAfterImage shipped with debian.
Why?
Hmm. This is exactly what I've been warning the ROOT team over and over again. If you insist on shipping third-party code with ROOT, you run into a huge maintenance problem.
> I'm going to send a patch with our modifications to
> Sasha Vasko ASAP.
> So, use ROOT built-in version of libAfterImage.
>
> Regards. Valeriy
>
>
> Stanislav Nesterov wrote:
>
> > Hi Cris,
> >
> > I've made short patch for TASImage.cxx and
> libAfterImage for
> > Debian-testing to compile. You can try to change
> temporary the sources
> > until Christian changes building scripts.
I think changing the build scripts is a really _really_ bad idea. Instead, `configure' should check that the version of the libAfterImage installed on the system is compatible with TASImage (actually the other way around, but OK).
> > And I would like to ask Christian somehow modify
> `changelog' file to
> > reflect current ROOT version correctly.
That's difficult. Previously, I had a few lines that automatically added changelog entires to the `debian/changelog' file. However, that file is meant solely for the maintainers, not for the occasional users. Also, there's the problem that the changes made automatically on a user machine is not automatically propagated back to the CVS repository. In stead, I would suggest that the ROOT maintainers changed that file as part of changing the version number. It should be that hard to, as I guess they have a script that does that stuff for them anyway. What needs to be added to the file `build/package/debian/changelog' is lines like
root (5.01.01) unstable; urgency=low
where `New upstream' is a changelog message, and the name and email should be that of the person doing the update.
> > Fons Rademakers wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Chris,
> > >
> > > we cannot use anymore the system provided
> libAfterImage due to the
> > > many mods we had to make in it (we hope in a later
> stage to go back
> > > into sync).
Hopefully soon, yes?
> > > Can you try building the built-in libAfterImage?
>you the version number of the installed libAfterImage. Why not use that script to check whether the library is too new, and possibly get the right preprocessor and linker flags?
> > > Christian (Holm), can you fix the debian package
> files such that we
> > > always use the ROOT provided libAfterImage (I've
> already disabled
> > > this option in ./configure in the head).
What if a user has an older version of libAfterImage installed, and still would like to use that one? libAfterImage comes with the script `afterimage-config' which can tell
The attached patch checks that libAfterImage is older than 1.04, and uses the bundled code if it isn't.
> > > Cheers, Fons.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Chris Roat wrote:
> > >
> > >> Hi,
> > >>
> > >> I'm having difficulty compiling the afterimage
> part of ROOT using
> > >> "make debian". The build proceeds through
> libRGL.so, and then gives
> > >> the warnings below. I'm using
> sarge(testing). Any idea what has
> > >> gone wrong? My afterimage library is
> up-to-date:
> > >>
> > >> [beta] ~/MultiFit > dpkg --list libafterimage-dev
> > >> Desired=Unknown/Install/Remove/Purge/Hold
> > >> |
> > >>
> Status=Not/Installed/Config-files/Unpacked/Failed-config/Half-installed
> > >> |/
> Err?=(none)/Hold/Reinst-required/X=both-problems
> (Status,Err:
> > >> uppercase=bad)
> > >> ||/ Name
> Version Description
> > >>
> +++-==================-==================-====================================================
> > >>
> > >> ii libafterimage-dev 2.00.04-3 imaging
> library designed
> > >> for AfterStep - development
This package reports version number `1.04' (via `afterimage-config --version'), same as the included libAfterImage. It is not very nice that these actually doesn't correspond.
The patch also fixes a problem in TProofPEAC. The patch is made against CVS HEAD as of a few hours ago.
Yours,
--
___ | Christian Holm Christensen
|_| | -------------------------------------------------------------
| | Address: Sankt Hansgade 23, 1. th. Phone: (+45) 35 35 96 91
_| DK-2200 Copenhagen N Cell: (+45) 24 61 85 91
_| Denmark Office: (+45) 353 25 404
____| Email: cholm_at_nbi.dk Web: www.nbi.dk/~cholm
| |
- text/x-patch attachment: root-5.01.01.patch__charset_ISO-8859-15
Received on Mon May 23 2005 - 17:39:13 MEST
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Tue Jan 02 2007 - 14:45:08 MET