From: Matt B. <wal...@ma...> - 2019-04-11 01:44:41
|
> On Apr 10, 2019, at 7:40 PM, Robert Krawitz <rl...@al...> wrote: > > On Wed, 10 Apr 2019 15:55:00 -0500, Matt Broughton wrote: >> Pulling the issue from other threads so it is easier to find: >> >> Out of curiosity, I tried calling the gutenprint52+cups backend without argument. I am not sure this is valid reasoning or not. In any event, the output may be informative. >> >> ~ matt$ sudo /usr/libexec/cups/backend/gutenprint52+usb Password: >> dyld: Library not loaded: /usr/local/lib/libusb-1.0.0.dylib >> Referenced from: /usr/libexec/cups/backend/gutenprint52+usb >> Reason: image not found >> Abort trap: 6 >> ~ matt$ >> >> It sure looks like it may be showing a crash on signal 6. > > So that suggests that gutenprint52+usb has an unsatisfied runtime > dependency on libusb (or in other cases it could be another library -- > unfortunately, it looks like CUPS isn't capturing that -- but libusb > seems lke the most likely culprit). > > I take it libusb isn't a standard component on OS X, so we need some > way to ensure it gets installed (either by static linking if possible, > in which case we'd have to distribute the source, as it's LGPL2.1+, by > bundling, or by otherwise arranging for it to be installed on > Gutenprint installation). > -- > Robert Krawitz <rl...@al...> I'll have to leave to technical, coding stuff to you and Steve. When we started producing the gutenprint52+cups backend, we needed to have libsub compiled in the $PATH. As I understand it, the backend was built against the library but it wasn't required in the final distribution. Would this be the difference between building against a static library and a dynamic library? If so, it looks like Steve built against the *.dyld rather than *.a. I can't remember if I was doing the releases when our backend was introduced. I think there may have been some discussion about the need to bundle the source code as the library itself was not being distributed. Matt -- Matt Broughton wal...@ma... |