Bug#706656: [3dprinter-general] Bug#706656: ITP: cura -- Controller for 3D printers
- To: Bas Wijnen <wijnen@debian.org>
- Cc: 3dprinter-general@lists.alioth.debian.org, 706656@bugs.debian.org
- Subject: Bug#706656: [3dprinter-general] Bug#706656: ITP: cura -- Controller for 3D printers
- From: Gregor Riepl <onitake@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2017 09:08:56 +0200
- Message-id: <[🔎] 484ee7dc-e3ea-2c76-003c-5306d67bff2c@gmail.com>
- Reply-to: Gregor Riepl <onitake@gmail.com>, 706656@bugs.debian.org
- In-reply-to: <20170404103445.GB29341@spark.dtdns.net>
- References: <e33fb6d3-9163-703d-0d14-b42051c7160d@gmail.com> <20170328092803.GB16829@spark.dtdns.net> <a8b754ab-12b0-432a-28a1-9b06265e04bd@gmail.com> <20170328182317.GA25093@spark.dtdns.net> <8d47dae2-e554-c8cc-7b20-33f9a007e490@gmail.com> <20170329090249.GC25093@spark.dtdns.net> <c2e6abb2-4482-90b8-ce98-7bd0ccc7f230@gmail.com> <20170329202756.GF25093@spark.dtdns.net> <c11935a8-3024-1ad4-3cf2-6de7694580e6@gmail.com> <58ffbf3d-ea2b-a967-36e9-41b440f542d5@gmail.com> <20170404103445.GB29341@spark.dtdns.net>
> Ah yes, clipper has weird and annoying naming. I talked to upstream about it,
> but they don't want to change it. I think it had something to do with a
> package naming conflict in Red Hat. In any case, the package is called
> libpolyclipping. There is a pkg-config file with it, but it's broken, so I
> changed it. I don't think the change made it in upstream's release, although
> I'm not sure. Code should use #include <clipper.hpp> and be compiled with:
Actually, polyclipping/clipper.hpp is correct.
pkg-config gives me -I/usr/include.
I updated the patch accordingly and dropped the removal of libs/*. This should
be sufficient for cmake to not pick any leftovers.
> g++ `pkg-config --cflags polyclipping` -c source.cpp -o object.o
> g++ `pkg-config --libs polyclipping` object.o -o target
>
> This will add -I/usr/include/polyclipping and -lpolyclipping respectively.
Solved by https://cmake.org/cmake/help/v3.0/module/FindPkgConfig.html
It's building and working as expected.
>> I'm going to double-check if I've missed any files, and then I'll patch up the
>> the sources to 2.4.0. Hopefully that fixes things.
This, and fonts-open-sans - and we should be good to go.
I haven't received more feedback from the font maintainers, need to check back
and see if the package is ok now.
Reply to: