[Tuxpaint-devel] [Fwd: Bug#300632: tuxpaint: FTBFS: Changed header files.]

[Ben A. <sy...@sa...>]

I believe we added header detection because it was a common problem for
users to forget to install the dependencies.  But this has caused
tuxpaint in Debian to break, which is a release critical bug right on
the verge of Sarge releasing.  I have to ask at this point if it is
really worth it, or if we shouldn't put moving tuxpaint to a proper
autotools-based build system as a higher priority.

I'll hack my way around it now (probably just by disabling the checks)
so I can remove this RC bug against tuxpaint as soon as possible, but
I'd like to know what you guys think our permanent fix should be.

Ben

-------- Forwarded Message --------
> From: Kurt Roeckx <ku...@ro...>
> Reply-To: Kurt Roeckx <ku...@ro...>, 30...@bu...
> To: su...@bu...
> Subject: Bug#300632: tuxpaint: FTBFS: Changed header files.
> Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2005 22:33:55 +0100
> Package: tuxpaint
> Version: 1:0.9.14-1
> Severity: serious
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Your package is no longer building problem.  I get the following error:
> 
> ...Compiling Tux Paint from source...
> src/tuxpaint.c:176:2: #error "---------------------------------------------------"
> src/tuxpaint.c:177:2: #error "If you installed SDL_image from a package, be sure"
> src/tuxpaint.c:178:2: #error "to get the development package, as well!"
> src/tuxpaint.c:179:2: #error "(e.g., 'libsdl-image1.2-devel.rpm')"
> src/tuxpaint.c:180:2: #error "---------------------------------------------------"
> src/tuxpaint.c:195:2: #error "---------------------------------------------------"
> src/tuxpaint.c:196:2: #error "If you installed SDL_mixer from a package, be sure"
> src/tuxpaint.c:197:2: #error "to get the development package, as well!"
> src/tuxpaint.c:198:2: #error "(e.g., 'libsdl-mixer1.2-devel.rpm')"
> src/tuxpaint.c:199:2: #error "---------------------------------------------------"
> make[1]: *** [obj/tuxpaint.o] Error 1
> 
> You do seem to have both mentioned required build dependencies.
> 
> The code looks like this:
> #include "SDL_image.h"
> #ifndef _IMG_h
> #error
> 
> #include "SDL_mixer.h"
> #ifndef _MIXER_H_
> #error
> 
> 
> The first seems to be using _SDL_IMAGE_H (now?) and the
> second _SDL_MIXER_H.
> 
> I find detection of presense of a header file like that a stupid
> way.  It should not rely on those defines.
> 
> The proper way to do this would be to have a configure script
> that could then give an error message.
> 
> 
> Kurt
> 
> 
--