hi, it's sounds great ! should I register somewhere ?
+ a -- do it yourself http://antoine.villeret.free.fr 2012/12/27 Hans-Christoph Steiner <[email protected]>: > > Hey Antoine, > > If you are willing to maintain Mac OS X and/or Windows ports, you can get > access to the PdLab build machines, and I'm willing to install opencv 2.4.x > on those machines. Basically, once everything is setup, you'll just need to > make the builds on the various platforms by doing 'make'. > > .hc > > On Dec 27, 2012, at 10:35 AM, Antoine Villeret wrote: > >> no idea, there wasn't any official opencv framework in the past, only >> some make by people who needs it but never maintained nor updated... >> so I think it still the case... >> people have to wait for someone who wants to make a framework, or to >> build it themselves >> but, are the packages available for Mac OS X through a package manager >> with automatic installation like in Debian ? >> if no, people have to build package by hand if I understood correctly >> so if they can build a pd package it will be very easy for them to >> build OpenCV 2 from lastest release >> which is I think a better idea than using an old and obsolete OpenCV >> Framework... >> >> I don't have a Mac OS X machine under hand for now to test it >> but I think it's not really hard to make a step by step tutorial to >> make pix_opencv working on OS X with a tarball and some dev tool >> >> -- >> do it yourself >> http://antoine.villeret.free.fr >> >> >> 2012/12/27 Hans-Christoph Steiner <[email protected]>: >>> >>> Ah ok, makes sense. What about opencv2 on Mac OS X? How is that handled? >>> >>> .hc >>> >>> On Dec 27, 2012, at 10:03 AM, Antoine Villeret wrote: >>> >>>> 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 <[email protected]>: >>>>> >>>>> 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 <[email protected]>: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 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 <[email protected]>: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Dec 13, 2012, at 12:21 PM, Antoine Villeret wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 2012/12/13 Hans-Christoph Steiner <[email protected]>: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> 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 [email protected] http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/gem-dev
