GNOME Bugzilla – Bug 484576
Configuration error with goffice 0.5
Last modified: 2018-06-29 21:51:31 UTC
Steps to reproduce: 1. ./configure 2. 3. Stack trace: checking for libgoffice-0.4 >= 0.4.0... no checking for libgoffice-0.3 >= 0.3.0... no checking for libgoffice-1 >= 0.0.4... no configure: error: Cannot find libgoffice. Other information: GnomeOffice v0.5 is out, you need to edit configure.in by adding another line, probably something like *** gnucash-2.2.1/configure.in.orig Sun Aug 19 06:44:55 2007 --- gnucash-2.2.1/configure.in Sun Oct 7 16:48:42 2007 *************** *** 1103,1112 **** AC_SUBST(GLADE_CFLAGS) AC_SUBST(GLADE_LIBS) ! PKG_CHECK_MODULES(GOFFICE, libgoffice-0.4 >= 0.4.0, [], [ ! PKG_CHECK_MODULES(GOFFICE, libgoffice-0.3 >= 0.3.0, [], [ ! PKG_CHECK_MODULES(GOFFICE, libgoffice-1 >= 0.0.4, [], [ ! AC_MSG_ERROR([Cannot find libgoffice.]) ]) ]) ]) --- 1103,1114 ---- AC_SUBST(GLADE_CFLAGS) AC_SUBST(GLADE_LIBS) ! PKG_CHECK_MODULES(GOFFICE, libgoffice-0.5 >= 0.5.0, [], [ ! PKG_CHECK_MODULES(GOFFICE, libgoffice-0.4 >= 0.4.0, [], [ ! PKG_CHECK_MODULES(GOFFICE, libgoffice-0.3 >= 0.3.0, [], [ ! PKG_CHECK_MODULES(GOFFICE, libgoffice-1 >= 0.0.4, [], [ ! AC_MSG_ERROR([Cannot find libgoffice.]) ! ]) ]) ]) ])
Have you tested that gnucash actually builds and runs with goffice-0.5?
No, still banging my head against configure issues (gtkhtml, cairo support, getting all the proper pieces is painful), so I guess my report is premature.
(Lowering severity.) As goffice-0.5 has a different library version number, then it's likely that we can use it without code changes as well. IIRC, the reports are that it does not build directly with goffice-0.5.
Created attachment 98005 [details] [review] Patch What about this one? Especially, does it still compile against goffice 0.4, show and print graphs?
Created attachment 98019 [details] [review] Patch revised Actually I committed this one as r16572. Goffice 0.5.0 seems to lack the function to render to the printing cairo context, so it will be unsupported. Is this worth a backport to branches/2.2?
Given 08:44:29 <andi5> do you think we need it for branches/2.2? 08:44:37 <cstim> yes, probably. I am awaiting a backport of r16572 and r16574 :-)
r16590. Thanks!
GnuCash bug tracking has moved to a new Bugzilla host. This bug has been copied to https://bugs.gnucash.org/show_bug.cgi?id=484576. Please update any external references or bookmarks.