[Digikam-devel] 0.9.0-RC2 packages for testing

[Marcel Wiesweg]

Hi,

I have uploaded the 0.9.0-rc2 tarballs for testing at

http://digikam3rdparty.free.fr/0.9.0-rc2/digikam-0.9.0-rc2.tar.bz2
http://digikam3rdparty.free.fr/0.9.0-rc2/digikamimageplugins-0.9.0-rc2.tar.bz2

Marcel
_______________________________________________
Digikam-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/digikam-devel

[Gilles Caulier-2]

Le mardi 5 décembre 2006 20:58, Marcel Wiesweg a écrit :
> Hi,
>
> I have uploaded the 0.9.0-rc2 tarballs for testing at
>
> http://digikam3rdparty.free.fr/0.9.0-rc2/digikam-0.9.0-rc2.tar.bz2
> http://digikam3rdparty.free.fr/0.9.0-rc2/digikamimageplugins-0.9.0-rc2.tar.
>bz2
>
> Marcel

Both tarballs compile fine under Mandriva 2007.

Gilles
_______________________________________________
Digikam-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/digikam-devel

[Gilles Caulier-2]

Le Mardi 5 Décembre 2006 20:58, Marcel Wiesweg a écrit :
> Hi,
>
> I have uploaded the 0.9.0-rc2 tarballs for testing at
>
> http://digikam3rdparty.free.fr/0.9.0-rc2/digikam-0.9.0-rc2.tar.bz2
> http://digikam3rdparty.free.fr/0.9.0-rc2/digikamimageplugins-0.9.0-rc2.tar.
>bz2
>
> Marcel

Both packages compile fine under Suse 10.1

Gilles
_______________________________________________
Digikam-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/digikam-devel

On Tuesday, 5. December 2006 20:58, Marcel Wiesweg wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have uploaded the 0.9.0-rc2 tarballs for testing at
>
> http://digikam3rdparty.free.fr/0.9.0-rc2/digikam-0.9.0-rc2.tar.bz2
> http://digikam3rdparty.free.fr/0.9.0-rc2/digikamimageplugins-0.9.0-rc2.tar.bz2

Hi Marcel,

Heh, I've build an deb pkg but did not have exiv2 0.12 installed.
make and make install did not complain but no digikam and
showfoto in /usr/bin/.

Would be nice to either get configure or make fail when
not all prerequisites are available ;)

Achim
>
> Marcel
> _______________________________________________
> Digikam-devel mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/digikam-devel
>
>

--
  To me vi is Zen.  To use vi is to practice zen. Every command is
  a koan. Profound to the user, unintelligible to the uninitiated.
  You discover truth everytime you use it.
                                      -- [hidden email]
_______________________________________________
Digikam-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/digikam-devel

On Wednesday, 6. December 2006 00:55, Achim Bohnet wrote:

> On Tuesday, 5. December 2006 20:58, Marcel Wiesweg wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I have uploaded the 0.9.0-rc2 tarballs for testing at
> >
> > http://digikam3rdparty.free.fr/0.9.0-rc2/digikam-0.9.0-rc2.tar.bz2
> > http://digikam3rdparty.free.fr/0.9.0-rc2/digikamimageplugins-0.9.0-rc2.tar.bz2
>
> Hi Marcel,
>
> Heh, I've build an deb pkg but did not have exiv2 0.12 installed.

Hi Gilles,

is exiv2 really necessary (ignoring localisation;)  Debian
is short before freeze for etch and has exiv2 0.10
as a pkgs in it's archive.

How 'dangerous' is an exiv2 0.10 -> 0.12 upgrade?  Is there
a soname changed involded?  aka will apps build against 0.10
still run when exiv2 0.12 is installed without a rebuild?
(sorry to late to try it now. I'm sure don't get it right without
some sleep).

We, the debian pkg maintainers have to decide about if patching
configure/digikam to accept 0.10 or uploading 0.12, shortly before
the new etch release, is the less dangerous option.

A quick check shows that exiv2 is used by debian pkgs:
  digikamimageplugins
  digikam
  ufraw
  kphotoalbum
  gimp-ufraw

If a quick exiv2 0.12 upload would breaks them, we get
'killed' by the debian release managers.

Thanks for any hint,
Achim

> make and make install did not complain but no digikam and
> showfoto in /usr/bin/.
>
> Would be nice to either get configure or make fail when
> not all prerequisites are available ;)
>
> Achim
> >
> > Marcel
> > _______________________________________________
> > Digikam-devel mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/digikam-devel
> >
> >
>
> --
>   To me vi is Zen.  To use vi is to practice zen. Every command is
>   a koan. Profound to the user, unintelligible to the uninitiated.
>   You discover truth everytime you use it.
>                                       -- [hidden email]
> _______________________________________________
> Digikam-devel mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/digikam-devel
>
>

--
  To me vi is Zen.  To use vi is to practice zen. Every command is
  a koan. Profound to the user, unintelligible to the uninitiated.
  You discover truth everytime you use it.
                                      -- [hidden email]
_______________________________________________
Digikam-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/digikam-devel

On Wednesday 06 December 2006 08:27, Achim Bohnet wrote:
>
> Hi Gilles,
>
> is exiv2 really necessary (ignoring localisation;)  Debian
> is short before freeze for etch and has exiv2 0.10
> as a pkgs in it's archive.
>
> How 'dangerous' is an exiv2 0.10 -> 0.12 upgrade?  Is there
> a soname changed involded?

Yes.

> aka will apps build against 0.10
> still run when exiv2 0.12 is installed without a rebuild?
> (sorry to late to try it now. I'm sure don't get it right without
> some sleep).

I believe the idea is that the new version can co-exist with the old
version (different names) so that applications linked with the old
version are not affected.

(CC'ing Kelemen Peter, the package maintainer)

>
> We, the debian pkg maintainers have to decide about if patching
> configure/digikam to accept 0.10 or uploading 0.12, shortly before
> the new etch release, is the less dangerous option.
>
> A quick check shows that exiv2 is used by debian pkgs:
>   digikamimageplugins
>   digikam
>   ufraw
>   kphotoalbum
>   gimp-ufraw
>
> If a quick exiv2 0.12 upload would breaks them, we get
> 'killed' by the debian release managers.
>
> Thanks for any hint,
> Achim

_______________________________________________
Digikam-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/digikam-devel

[Gilles Caulier-2]

On Tuesday 05 December 2006 20:58, Marcel Wiesweg wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have uploaded the 0.9.0-rc2 tarballs for testing at
>
> http://digikam3rdparty.free.fr/0.9.0-rc2/digikam-0.9.0-rc2.tar.bz2
> http://digikam3rdparty.free.fr/0.9.0-rc2/digikamimageplugins-0.9.0-rc2.tar.
>bz2
>
> Marcel

Both tarballs compile fine under Mandriva 2006.

Gilles
_______________________________________________
Digikam-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/digikam-devel

[Marcel Wiesweg]

> Hi Marcel,
>
> Heh, I've build an deb pkg but did not have exiv2 0.12 installed.
> make and make install did not complain but no digikam and
> showfoto in /usr/bin/.
>
> Would be nice to either get configure or make fail when
> not all prerequisites are available ;)

I had a stale pkgconfig file from exiv2 lying around, configure thought I had
only version 0.9 and it _did_ fail.
Actually, there is a check in configure.in.in based on pkgconfig.


have_exiv2='no'
AC_PATH_PROG(EXIV2_CONFIG,exiv2-config)
if test -n "${EXIV2_CONFIG}"; then
  EXIV2_CFLAGS="`$EXIV2_CONFIG --cflags`"
  AC_SUBST(EXIV2_CFLAGS)
  LIB_EXIV2="`$EXIV2_CONFIG --libs`"
  AC_SUBST(LIB_EXIV2)
  PKG_CHECK_MODULES(EXIV2, exiv2 >= 0.12, have_exiv2=yes,have_exiv2=no)
fi

if test "x$have_exiv2" != "xyes"; then
  if test -n "${EXIV2_CONFIG}"; then
    AC_MSG_RESULT($have_exiv2)
  fi
  AC_MSG_WARN([Exiv2 library not found, digiKam will not be compiled.])
  DO_NOT_COMPILE="digikam digikamimageplugins $DO_NOT_COMPILE"
fi

But please dont ask me about autoconf/automake, I have never learned this
stuff, and I won't learn it anymore (waiting for CMake).

Marcel

>
> Achim
_______________________________________________
Digikam-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/digikam-devel

[Gilles Caulier-2]

On Wednesday 06 December 2006 19:51, Marcel Wiesweg wrote:

> > Hi Marcel,
> >
> > Heh, I've build an deb pkg but did not have exiv2 0.12 installed.
> > make and make install did not complain but no digikam and
> > showfoto in /usr/bin/.
> >
> > Would be nice to either get configure or make fail when
> > not all prerequisites are available ;)
>
> I had a stale pkgconfig file from exiv2 lying around, configure thought I
> had only version 0.9 and it _did_ fail.
> Actually, there is a check in configure.in.in based on pkgconfig.
>
>
> have_exiv2='no'
> AC_PATH_PROG(EXIV2_CONFIG,exiv2-config)
> if test -n "${EXIV2_CONFIG}"; then
>   EXIV2_CFLAGS="`$EXIV2_CONFIG --cflags`"
>   AC_SUBST(EXIV2_CFLAGS)
>   LIB_EXIV2="`$EXIV2_CONFIG --libs`"
>   AC_SUBST(LIB_EXIV2)
>   PKG_CHECK_MODULES(EXIV2, exiv2 >= 0.12, have_exiv2=yes,have_exiv2=no)
> fi
>
> if test "x$have_exiv2" != "xyes"; then
>   if test -n "${EXIV2_CONFIG}"; then
>     AC_MSG_RESULT($have_exiv2)
>   fi
>   AC_MSG_WARN([Exiv2 library not found, digiKam will not be compiled.])
>   DO_NOT_COMPILE="digikam digikamimageplugins $DO_NOT_COMPILE"
> fi
>
> But please dont ask me about autoconf/automake, I have never learned this
> stuff, and I won't learn it anymore (waiting for CMake).
>

Marcel,

This automake code have been done by Angelo from kipi-plugins... I CC him if
he can guide you...

Gilles
_______________________________________________
Digikam-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/digikam-devel

Alle 07:28, giovedì 7 dicembre 2006, Gilles Caulier ha scritto:
> On Wednesday 06 December 2006 19:51, Marcel Wiesweg wrote:
> > > Hi Marcel,
> > >
> > > Heh, I've build an deb pkg but did not have exiv2 0.12 installed.
> > > make and make install did not complain but no digikam and
No what is happening now is that configure warns that we can't
compile kipi-plugins without exiv2. User can go on but ther's nothing
to build.
> > > showfoto in /usr/bin/.
I don't know anything about digikam though.
> > >
> > > Would be nice to either get configure or make fail when
> > > not all prerequisites are available ;)
Yes I totally agree. I told Gilles I'd prefer to have AC_MSG_ERR
instead of AC_MSG_WARN for libexiv. IIRC no one went on this subject.
I believe we must do it now.

> > But please dont ask me about autoconf/automake, I have never learned this
> > stuff, and I won't learn it anymore (waiting for CMake).

CMake or not I believe we should continue maintain autotools.

Angelo
(who's starting believing he should think to submit digikam-devel@ a day)


_______________________________________________
Digikam-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/digikam-devel