the default make install command from git repo install gem into /usr/local/include -- do it yourself http://antoine.villeret.free.fr
2012/12/27 Hans-Christoph Steiner <h...@at.or.at>: > > What installs the headers into /usr/local/include/Gem? The Gem package in > Debian/Ubuntu installs into /usr/include/Gem, so -I/usr/include/Gem needs to > be there. If some standard installer installs into /usr/local/include/Gem, > then I'd keep -I /usr/local/include/Gem in CFLAGS_linux, otherwise I'd leave > it to people to edit the Makefile to add their custom Gem header install > locations. > > .hc > > On Dec 27, 2012, at 9:30 AM, Antoine Villeret wrote: > >> hi, >> >> thansk for that, >> >> i had to change the CLAGS_linux variable (line 39) to : >> CFLAGS_linux = -I/usr/local/include/Gem `pkg-config --cflags opencv` >> >> to make it >> but I don't know if I should or not push it to the SVN ? >> >> -- >> do it yourself >> http://antoine.villeret.free.fr >> >> >> 2012/12/27 Hans-Christoph Steiner <h...@at.or.at>: >>> >>> Ok, I committed a Makefile based on the Library Template. It does not >>> build pix_opencv_contours.cc pix_opencv_matchshape.cc, they both gave a big >>> dump of roughly the same errors. >>> >>> The template Makefile will handle a lot of things automatically for you, >>> the trade-off is that its strict about certain things: every object must >>> have a help patch, all example files must go into examples/, etc. The >>> template Makefile is really easy to make a Debian package from too. >> >> really easy why not, but how ? >> if I should make it myself I need a little more help... >> the links on the page : http://puredata.info/dev/DebianPackagingStructure >> are not broken but doesn't point to the right discussion... >> anyway, I found the discussion and others but can't find anywhere a >> good step by step howto build debian package >> sorry, this will be my first debian package :-) >> >> >>> >>> * is pix_opencv_opticalflow.pd an example or an abstraction? If its an >>> example, it should go into examples/ with of.frag. If its an abstraction, >>> it should have a help patch. Or if its just a text patch, it can be left >>> out of the Makefile and left as is. >> >> I forgot this one... >> I placed it in the examples/ folder for now >> but working on optical flow externals is in my todo list (with gpu and >> opencl) >> >>> >>> * pix_opencv_blobtrack.cc seems to require opencv2, does that mean both >>> opencv 1.2 and opencv 2.x need to be installed? Is there an OpenCV2 >>> framework for Mac OS X? >> >> yes, most of recent and future externals take advantages of the new >> C++ API of OpenCV 2.x >> OpenCV 2 releases are distribute as a tarball for Linux/OSX, there is >> no Framework on the download page http://opencv.org/downloads.html >> and a quick search lead to multiple posts over the internet on how to >> build it by hand (which very easy since the new cmake system) >> and also a precompiled package : >> http://vislab.cs.vt.edu/~vislab/wiki/images/4/44/OpenCV2.0.dmg >> found here : http://opencv.willowgarage.com/wiki/Mac_OS_X_OpenCV_Port >> but it's obsolete >> >> ++ >> a >> >>> >>> On Mac OS X, I was building against Pd-extended 0.43 since pix_opencv uses >>> some new Gem headers that aren't included in Pd-extended 0.42. The >>> template Makefile automatically looks in Pd-extended if its in >>> /Applications. If you want to choose which version of Pd-extende to build >>> against: >>> >>> make PD_PATH=/Applications/Pd-0.43.4-extended-20121223.app/Contents/Resource >>> >>> .hc >>> >>> On Dec 26, 2012, at 3:11 PM, Antoine Villeret wrote: >>> >>>> hello, >>>> >>>> I made an update today on pix_opencv with an improvement of >>>> pix_opencv_contours which is now a complete replacement of other >>>> pix_opencv_contours_* objects >>>> >>>> and I sent a private mail to Lluis even if I found some old mails on >>>> this list by him and i never get any answer >>>> so maybe you can go ahead according to the "one week consensus" ? >>>> >>>> there is actually one strange make rule, its for a custom blobtracker >>>> but I will change this as soon as i have time >>>> >>>> merry chrismas to all >>>> >>>> cheers >>>> >>>> a >>>> -- >>>> do it yourself >>>> http://antoine.villeret.free.fr >>>> >>>> >>>> 2012/12/13 Hans-Christoph Steiner <h...@at.or.at>: >>>>> >>>>> On Dec 13, 2012, at 12:21 PM, Antoine Villeret wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> 2012/12/13 Hans-Christoph Steiner <h...@at.or.at>: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Dec 13, 2012, at 3:43 AM, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >>>>>>>> Hash: SHA1 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 2012-12-12 19:42, Antoine Villeret wrote: >>>>>>>>> i've already tried to make a C++ external from the template but i >>>>>>>>> never reach something which works so if you have a working template >>>>>>>>> please let me know >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> pix-opencv depends on external libraries, and afaik often needs >>>>>>>> specific versions thereof. >>>>>>>> i think it is a perfect candidate to *not* use a template Makefile but >>>>>>>> instead use something more intelligent like autotools, scons, >>>>>>>> cmake,...which reminds me that it already does use autoconf >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> and what about including it in Gem ? as it depends on it (and it >>>>>>>>> may depends on very new feature such as ROI soon) i think it's a >>>>>>>>> better choice >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> pix-opencv is developed by different people than Gem. i think it is >>>>>>>> good to keep the repositories (and user-management) separate. >>>>>>>> so: i'd rather not have pix-opencv be "part" of Gem. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> but: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> i agree that pix-opencv could be made more readily available to users. >>>>>>>> it might be a good idea to distribute it together with Gem-releases. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> so: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> the build-system needs little changes to build a pix_opencv found in >>>>>>>> extra/ (basically, uncomment the relevant lines at the end of >>>>>>>> extra/configure.ac and add a line to extra/Makefile.am) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> we could then create a script that pulls in pix-opencv to >>>>>>>> extra/pix_opencv before the builds are actually started. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> autotools are very useful for detecting platform differences and making >>>>>>> the build system respond differently based on that, like handling >>>>>>> multiple optional dependencies like in Gem. For the case you describe, >>>>>>> that works well with the template Makefile. For an object that >>>>>>> requires a specific library, add it to LDFLAGS. If that library not >>>>>>> installed, it'll throw an error, which is what you want since the >>>>>>> object requires that library. pix_opencv requires opencv, and does >>>>>>> nothing without it, so no autotools necessary. >>>>>> >>>>>> I don't know anything about autotool and it looks like quite dark for >>>>>> me so if i can avoid another headache it's better :-) >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> As for version differences, I generally find it way too much work to >>>>>>> support building against various versions of the API and just choose >>>>>>> one and standardize on it. Then, once this lib is widely distributed >>>>>>> it could be worth building against different versions of opencv if >>>>>>> there is demand. First get it out there for the majority of users, >>>>>>> then deal with any relevant edge cases, otherwise you are likely to >>>>>>> spend lots of time dealing with edge cases that might not really be >>>>>>> relevant. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> My problem with autotools is that very few people know how to modify >>>>>>> it, so the build system then rots because its not maintained and other >>>>>>> issues. I've seen this happen to a lot of autotools build systems in >>>>>>> Pd projects over the years. For example, Gem's autotools setup has >>>>>>> gotten so complex, its almost impenetrable for me, and I've done a fair >>>>>>> amount of autotools. This is one reason to not include every object in >>>>>>> Gem. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The Makefile that's there is already quite close to working. I'm happy >>>>>>> to commit fixes to get it working if that's OK with the maintainers. >>>>>>> I've committed to pix_opencv before. Indeed I did this work back in >>>>>>> 2009 but sevy objected so it was reverted and abandoned: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> http://pure-data.svn.sourceforge.net/viewvc/pure-data/trunk/externals/pix_opencv/Makefile?r1=12563&r2=12571 >>>>>> >>>>>> I think we should ask Lluis for that >>>>>> with the current Makefile in the SVN man should have opencv >= 2.3 >>>>>> (some externals won't compile with previous OpenCV version) but there >>>>>> is not check about that I think >>>>>> and I can build with >>>>>> ./configure --with-pd=<PATH> --with-gem=<PATH> >>>>>> make >>>>> >>>>> The Makefile equivalent of this is: >>>>> >>>>> make PD_SRC=<PATH> GEM_SRC=<PATH> >>>>> >>>>> Otherwise it'll look in the default installed locations for the headers. >>>>> >>>>>> but only tested on Ubuntu >>>>>> I don't know if it could build on other linux distro and even less on >>>>>> Mac OS X and Windows >>>>>> Should fixing that Makefile.in be a starting point to distrute the >>>>>> package ? >>>>> >>>>> Let me know and i'll do it. Is Lluis on this list? Yes, I can include >>>>> 'make osx_tarball' so its easy to make the tarball for releases. >>>>> >>>>> .hc >>>>> >>>>> >>> > _______________________________________________ GEM-dev mailing list GEM-dev@iem.at http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/gem-dev
