[oi-dev] inkscape calls gcc7 and 10

[Udo Grabowski (IMK)]

On 07/07/2023 07:20, Tim Mooney via oi-dev wrote:
> In regard to: Re: [oi-dev] inkscape calls gcc7 and 10, Udo Grabowski (IMK)...:
>
>> On 04/07/2023 11:08, Udo Grabowski (IMK) wrote:
>>> On 04/07/2023 10:53, Marcel Telka wrote:
>>>> On Tue, Jul 04, 2023 at 10:20:32AM +0200, Udo Grabowski (IMK) wrote:
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>> the story with the mixup continues, this time inkscape.
>>>>> Crashes, shows both gcc/7 and gcc/10
>>>>
>>>> The inkscape's problems are basically these:
>
> Since Udo brought it up, I took a look at what's involved in updating
> inkscape to current latest stable (0.92.4 -> 1.2.2).
>
> The old all-in-one source is no longer a thing, so if we build from
> released tarballs, we'll potentially need to fetch and extract multiple
> components.
>
> Questions about that:
>
> 1) lib2geom is required, but it could be built and packaged separately.
> Nothing else (other than inkscape) that I'm aware of uses it currently.
>
> Would it be preferable to have it as a separate package, or just build it
> and package it in the same package as inkscape?

I don't know any other package that uses it (and would be of interest, too...),
so that simply depends on what is the easiest way to maintain it.

>
> 2) some of the extensions require low-use libraries, like the 'libwpd'
> that Udo mentioned.
>
> Should the inkscape extensions that require these esoteric libraries be
> split into separate packages, so 'image/inkscape' has fewer dependencies,
> but 'image/inkscape/extension/wordperfect' (or whatever) can optionally
> be installed to get support for that legacy format?
>

libwpd and wpg are used in libreoffice, too. Since WP is really prehistoric,
it could be patched out of both packages, or just left in, if that is easier
to maintain.


> Next, 1.2.2 actually builds without *any* of the local patches, though I still
> need to look through them to see if there are any OI-customization patches
> that we still need.
 >
> Many of the existing patches are for math library functions like
> log(), sin(), pow(), etc. where integers rather than doubles were being
> passed.  I can update these so they apply to 1.2.2, but they seem to be
> no longer required (probably because of gcc/g++ 10.x).
>
> Question:
>
> 3) is it worth updating these patches, if they're not needed to actually
> build any more?  I'm tempted to say no, but I'm willing to update them
> if Andreas or others have strong feelings about keeping as many as
> possible.


Often patches show their value not in the build, but for some function
at runtime, so ditching them just based on "build-or-not" could be risky.
This has to be evaluated patch by patch.
-- 
Dr.Udo Grabowski   Inst.f.Meteorology & Climate Research IMK-ASF-SAT
http://www.imk-asf.kit.edu/english/sat.php
KIT - Karlsruhe Institute of Technology           http://www.kit.edu
Postfach 3640,76021 Karlsruhe,Germany T:(+49)721 608-26026 F:-926026

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 5221 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL: <http://openindiana.org/pipermail/oi-dev/attachments/20230707/c7a8dabb/attachment.bin>