On 2018.05.30 13:58, Marc Hübner wrote:
Jack,

Craft downloads the sources to %craftroot%/download/git/extragear/kmymoney by default. You can patch your file there, then craft --unmerge kmymoney and craft --install kmymoney again. It should pick up your changes when
building that way...I'm doing that all the time.
Thanks. but unfortunately, the two existing blueprints for KMyMoney are both git head (master and 5.0 branches.) The last time I attempted a KDE-Windows build, it was still called portage/emerge. I suppose I can look at other blueprints to make it use a tarball.

On Wed, May 30, 2018, 12:52 PM Jack <ostrof...@users.sourceforge.net> wrote:

> On 2018.05.30 13:40, Jack wrote:
> > On 2018.05.30 11:16, Łukasz Wojniłowicz wrote:
> >> Dnia środa, 30 maja 2018 10:56:58 CEST Thomas Baumgart pisze:
> >> > Hi Jack,
> >> >
> >> > On Dienstag, 29. Mai 2018 19:58:05 CEST Jack wrote:
> >> > > On 2018.05.29 07:53, Thomas Baumgart wrote:
> >> > > > Jack,
> >> > > >
> >> > > > On Dienstag, 29. Mai 2018 02:31:38 CEST Jack Ostroff wrote:
> >> > > > > I finally set up a new Craft environment, and got all KMM
> >> deps
> >> > > > > installed OK.
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > First issue - KMM complained about finding python36 but
> >> needing
> >> > > > > python2. I did "craft python2" and that error disappeared.
> >> Should
> >> > > > > python2 be included as a dep?
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > Now, I still get the following:
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > .....
> >> > > > > -- Performing Test COMPILE_HAS_DEPRECATED_ATTR - Success
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > CMake Error at kmymoney/misc/CMakeLists.txt:13 (if):
> >> > > > >    if given arguments:
> >> > > > >      "1" "AND"
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > >   Unknown arguments specified
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Looks like the second argument is missing here. Looking at the
> >> > > > statement, it seems to me that you do not have the latest
> >> version,
> >> > > > since in commit 9d616136e123698a409d42b860a8786d5ed4bf08 there
> >> was a
> >> > > > change that should solve the issue. Of course, I could be
> >> mistaken
> >> > > > with this.
> >> > >
> >> > > I'll have to go back and see exactly how it gets the source. I
> >> > > originally thought it was using the 5.0 release tag, in which
> >> case you
> >> > > are likely to be right.  If that's the case, I'll see about
> >> getting it
> >> > > to use 5.0 git head, but if it's already doing that, then ...?
> >> >
> >> > Ah, that makes a difference: the above mentioned change is on
> >> master (only).
> >> > Please try to extract the change in kmymoney/misc/CMakeLists.txt
> >> from
> >> > commit 9d616136e123698a4 and put it on top of your 5.0 branch and
> >> see if
> >> > that makes a difference. I am not sure if a cherry-pick of the
> >> whole commit
> >> > will work.
> >> >
> >> >   git diff 5.0..master kmymoney/misc/CMakeLists.txt
> >> >
> >> > will show you what has been changed. Once you confirm that it
> >> works, we can
> >> > add it to the 5.0 branch (or you do it).
> >> >
> >> > Maybe, Lukasz can provide information if the 5.0 branch is
> >> compilable at all
> >> > for the craft environment.
> >>
> >> I don't know. You can try to apply my patches targeted for MS
> >> Windows and see.
> > It looks like the only patch to that particular file was adding the
> > double quotes.  My problem is I can't figure out how apply that
> > change to something Craft will then compile. It does look reasonable > > to apply that commit to 5.0, then Craft would automatically use it. > > If I can figure out how to do the cherry-pick, I'll go ahead with it,
> > unless anyone objects.
> I spoke too soon - that commit includes other files, which have
> conflicts I don't want to deal with now. It looks like trying to merge > master into 5.0 will take some effort with such issues. I don't know > if I should bother making a commit for the changes to just that file,
> or keep looking for another approach for my short-term testing.
>
> >>
> >> > If it needs more, it would be feasible to think
> >> > about a 5.1 release soon, which we branch off master. Thoughts?
> >>
> >> Great idea for later. There is still no encryption on MS Windows and
> >> it will
> >> be available with gpgme 1.11.2. Besides we have nothing new to offer
> >> (bugs
> >> maybe :) ) in 5.1 release.
> > Even without encryption, I think we should get some 5.x version
> > released on Windows as soon as we can produce a working installer.
> > Given it will take changes to what is already released as 5.0.1, I
> > don't know if it would be best to use 5.0.2 or 5.1.0.
>


Reply via email to