26 Jun
2012
26 Jun
'12
12:07 p.m.
Tim, Darrell,
Digikam had been fixed once before for libpng15 issues. The patch
(digikam-libpng15+gcc47_1.diff) contained:
diff -uNrb digikam.orig/digikam/kioslave/digikamthumbnail.cpp
digikam/digikam/kioslave/digikamthumbnail.cpp
--- digikam.orig/digikam/kioslave/digikamthumbnail.cpp 2012-04-19
07:02:43.000000000 -0500
+++ digikam/digikam/kioslave/digikamthumbnail.cpp 2012-04-19 16:44:10.307517462
-0500
@@ -413,16 +413,16 @@
if (color_type == PNG_COLOR_TYPE_PALETTE)
png_set_expand(png_ptr);
- if (info_ptr->color_type == PNG_COLOR_TYPE_RGB_ALPHA)
+ if (color_type == PNG_COLOR_TYPE_RGB_ALPHA)
has_alpha = 1;
- if (info_ptr->color_type == PNG_COLOR_TYPE_GRAY_ALPHA)
+ if (color_type == PNG_COLOR_TYPE_GRAY_ALPHA)
{
has_alpha = 1;
has_grey = 1;
}
- if (info_ptr->color_type == PNG_COLOR_TYPE_GRAY)
+ if (color_type == PNG_COLOR_TYPE_GRAY)
has_grey = 1;
unsigned char **lines;
The first part of the patch is in the GIT tree, however, it looks like the
second part of the patch was either lost or not applied because the code still
contains:
if (info_ptr->color_type == PNG_COLOR_TYPE_RGB_ALPHA)
has_alpha = 1;
if (info_ptr->color_type == PNG_COLOR_TYPE_GRAY_ALPHA)
{
has_alpha = 1;
has_grey = 1;
}
if (info_ptr->color_type == PNG_COLOR_TYPE_GRAY)
has_grey = 1;
unsigned char **lines;
The error I'm seeing is:
digikamthumbnail.cpp:416:17: error: invalid use of incomplete type 'png_info
{aka struct png_info_def}'
In file included from digikamthumbnail.cpp:96:0:
/usr/include/png.h:741:16: error: forward declaration of 'png_info {aka struct
png_info_def}'
digikamthumbnail.cpp:419:17: error: invalid use of incomplete type 'png_info
{aka struct png_info_def}'
In file included from digikamthumbnail.cpp:96:0:
/usr/include/png.h:741:16: error: forward declaration of 'png_info {aka struct
png_info_def}'
digikamthumbnail.cpp:425:17: error: invalid use of incomplete type 'png_info
{aka struct png_info_def}'
In file included from digikamthumbnail.cpp:96:0:
/usr/include/png.h:741:16: error: forward declaration of 'png_info {aka struct
png_info_def}'
You can simply apply the patch with the sed call:
sed -i '/info_ptr->color_type/s|info_ptr->color_type|color_type|'
${srcdir}/digikam/digikam/kioslave/digikamthumbnail.cpp
Then digikam builds against libpng15:
Finished making: tde-digikam 14.0.0_dev-1 (Tue Jun 26 19:03:33 UTC 2012)
--
David C. Rankin, J.D.,P.E.
26 Jun
26 Jun
3:32 p.m.
New subject: [trinity-devel] digikam FTBFS - libpng15 patch regression or not applied?
Tim, Darrell,
Digikam had been fixed once before for libpng15 issues. The patch
(digikam-libpng15+gcc47_1.diff) contained:
<snip>
I wonder how that happened. Fixed in GIT hash 18ecd51.
Tim
3:38 p.m.
New subject: [trinity-devel] digikam FTBFS - libpng15 patch regression or not applied?
On 06/26/2012 02:07 PM, David C. Rankin wrote:
Tim, Darrell,
Digikam had been fixed once before for libpng15 issues. The patch
(digikam-libpng15+gcc47_1.diff) contained:
diff -uNrb digikam.orig/digikam/kioslave/digikamthumbnail.cpp
digikam/digikam/kioslave/digikamthumbnail.cpp
--- digikam.orig/digikam/kioslave/digikamthumbnail.cpp 2012-04-19
07:02:43.000000000 -0500
+++ digikam/digikam/kioslave/digikamthumbnail.cpp 2012-04-19 16:44:10.307517462
-0500
@@ -413,16 +413,16 @@
if (color_type == PNG_COLOR_TYPE_PALETTE)
png_set_expand(png_ptr);
- if (info_ptr->color_type == PNG_COLOR_TYPE_RGB_ALPHA)
+ if (color_type == PNG_COLOR_TYPE_RGB_ALPHA)
has_alpha = 1;
- if (info_ptr->color_type == PNG_COLOR_TYPE_GRAY_ALPHA)
+ if (color_type == PNG_COLOR_TYPE_GRAY_ALPHA)
{
has_alpha = 1;
has_grey = 1;
}
- if (info_ptr->color_type == PNG_COLOR_TYPE_GRAY)
+ if (color_type == PNG_COLOR_TYPE_GRAY)
has_grey = 1;
unsigned char **lines;
<quote>
Likely slipped through the cracks and never was pushed. We need to add
preprocessor directives.
Here's a proposed patch:
http://humanreadable.nfshost.com/trinity/patches/digikam-libpng15.diff
Tested here with Slackware 13.1 and Current. As I don't have libpng 1.5
installed on either system, my half of the patch test is complete. You get to
test against 1.5. :-)
Upon your successful report I'll push ASAP.
</quote>
Darrell,
Just finished building with the patch -- worked fine with the preprocessor
directives -- push it :)
--
David C. Rankin, J.D.,P.E.
3:45 p.m.
New subject: [trinity-devel] digikam FTBFS - libpng15 patch regression or not applied?
On 06/26/2012 05:32 PM, Timothy Pearson wrote:
<snip>
I wonder how that happened. Fixed in GIT hash 18ecd51.
Tim
Gremlins.... If that is the only place they appear -- we are lucky :)
--
David C. Rankin, J.D.,P.E.
6:29 p.m.
New subject: [trinity-devel] digikam FTBFS - libpng15 patch regression or not applied?
I wonder how
that happened. Fixed in GIT hash 18ecd51.
Gremlins.... If that is the only place they appear -- we are
lucky :)
7:31 p.m.
New subject: [trinity-devel] digikam FTBFS - libpng15 patch regression or not applied?
I wonder how
that happened. Fixed in GIT hash 18ecd51.
Gremlins.... If that is the only place they appear -- we are lucky :)
7:36 p.m.
New subject: [trinity-devel] digikam FTBFS - libpng15 patch regression or not applied?
I wonder how that happened. Fixed in GIT hash
18ecd51.
Gremlins.... If that is the only place they appear -- we are lucky :)
7:47 p.m.
New subject: [trinity-devel] digikam FTBFS - libpng15 patch regression or not applied?
(I'm
confused why the preprocessor checks were not needed.)
They are not needed because the original code in Digikam was
redundant. The patch simply removed the redundancy!
7:49 p.m.
New subject: [trinity-devel] digikam FTBFS - libpng15 patch regression or not applied?
(I'm confused why the preprocessor checks were not
needed.)
They are not needed because the original code in Digikam was
redundant. The patch simply removed the redundancy!
9:40 p.m.
New subject: [trinity-devel] digikam FTBFS - libpng15 patch regression or not applied?
On 06/26/2012 09:31 PM, Darrell Anderson wrote:
David,
Did you test this patch too, as opposed to the patch I created? I don't have libpng
1.5 to test against.
(I'm confused why the preprocessor checks were not needed.)
Darrell
I tested yours with the preprocessor checks. I don't know what difference they
will make for building with 1.4, but they work fine with 1.5.
--
David C. Rankin, J.D.,P.E.
4338
days inactive
4339
days old
10 comments
3 participants
participants (3)
-
Darrell Anderson -
David C. Rankin -
Timothy Pearson