Error compiling KMM on Windows 10 (Craft)

[Jack]

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 <ostroffjh at 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.
> >
>