[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

libgphoto2 and sane-backends FTBFS with libusb2-dev



Dear GNU/kFreeBSD maintainers,

we have recently updated sane-backends to a newer upstream release and
changed the build dependencies from libusb 0.1 to libusb 1.0.
Unfortunately now the package FTBFS on kFreeBSD because of conflicting
libusb-dev und libusb2-dev libraries.

It seemed that the easiest solution was to fix the issue in libgphoto2
which pulled in libusb-dev and still used the outdated libusb 0.1
library, so we fixed bug #714441 and made an upgrade to libusb 1.0
(libusb2-dev) as well.

Now libgphoto2 FTBFS on kFreeBSD but we can't make sense of the build logs.

On kFreeBSD-i386 libusb-1.0 is autodetected by the configure script. The
package FTBFS because of

libusb1.c:320:16: error: 'ENODATA' undeclared (first use in this
function) [1]

I have found a lot of similar bugs and the workaround appears to be to
define ENODATA as ENOATTR like that

/* Workaround for GNU/kFreeBSD */
#if defined(__FreeBSD_kernel__)
#ifndef ENODATA
#define ENODATA ENOATTR
#endif
#endif

However on kFreeBSD-amd64 libusb-1.0 is not autodetected and libgphoto2
fails with another error.

In file included from libusb1.c:36:0:
/usr/include/libusb.h:254:43: error: expected '=', ',', ';', 'asm' or
'__attribute__' before '__aligned'
 } libusb_ss_endpoint_companion_descriptor __aligned(sizeof(void *));


The strange part of the story is that another build on the kfreebsd-i386
porter box failed with the same error messages like on -amd64.

I'd be glad about any hints, pointers, ideas and solutions to make
libgphoto2 and sane-backends compile on kFreebsd.

(Please CC us because we are not subscribed to the list)

Regards,

Markus


[1]
https://buildd.debian.org/status/fetch.php?pkg=libgphoto2&arch=kfreebsd-i386&ver=2.4.14-2.1&stamp=1374520975

[2]
https://buildd.debian.org/status/fetch.php?pkg=libgphoto2&arch=kfreebsd-amd64&ver=2.4.14-2.1&stamp=1374520704

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


Reply to: