Andrew, I went ahead an merged this into the 5.0 branch since it does restore the version 4 behavior.
Thanks, Wayne On 8/8/2018 8:12 PM, Andrew Lutsenko wrote: > Sure, > > Afaik, 5.0.1 can be expected to be released in couple months vs > undefined 5.1 release date (my current gut feeling is 6-12 months, feel > free to correct me). The main reason I would like to see this patch in > 5.0.1 is to not have to ask users of my plugin to run nightlies for a year. > I provided pre-built patched python bindings for win64 but can't do it > for every platform. > > My patch also can hardly be classified as a "feature" since it is > essentially not new code, only swig config change. In some lens it also > fixes a regression since in KiCad 4 you could read all footprint pads > from python and in 5 you currently can't. > > But I admit that I'm biased :) > > On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 4:48 PM Seth Hillbrand <s...@hillbrand.org > <mailto:s...@hillbrand.org>> wrote: > > Hi Andrew- > > No bother at all. Sorry for the slow responses. Feel free to keep > asking if you don't get an answer. > > The recent change was a regression in v5 vs v4. The difference is > in where we draw the feature vs. bug fix line. Can you give a bit > more information about why 5.0.1 is important vs. 5.1? Unless Wayne > wants to jump in give the green light, this feels like a feature > that could wait. > > -Seth > > Am Mi., 8. Aug. 2018 um 16:16 Uhr schrieb Andrew Lutsenko > <anlutse...@gmail.com <mailto:anlutse...@gmail.com>>: > > Hi Seth, > > Sorry to be repeating myself but since I didn't get any response > I assumed this just slipped through everyone's attention. > > I noticed that a fix of very similar scope to mine was pushed to > both dev and 5.0 branches (Re-add missing SWIG zone filler). > Can my patch be pushed to 5.0 too, please? > > Regards, > Andrew > > On Fri, Aug 3, 2018 at 11:03 AM Andrew Lutsenko > <anlutse...@gmail.com <mailto:anlutse...@gmail.com>> wrote: > > Awesome, thanks! > Qa machine seems happy too. > > So is there any chance of this getting into 5.0 branch? > > I published my plugin earlier here > https://github.com/openscopeproject/InteractiveHtmlBom > > And it generated a fair amount of interest on kicad.info > <http://kicad.info> > > https://forum.kicad.info/t/interactive-html-bom-plugin-for-kicad-5-0/11713 > > Plugin doesn't require this patch but without it it can't > render custom shape pads and any graphics on copper/silkscreen. > Would be great to see this in 5.0.1 but I understand if you > only want to put critical fixes in that release. > > Regards, > Andrew > > On Fri, Aug 3, 2018 at 5:35 AM Wayne Stambaugh > <stambau...@gmail.com <mailto:stambau...@gmail.com>> wrote: > > Andrew, > > I merged your patch into the development branch of > KiCad. Thank you for > your contribution to KiCad. > > Cheers, > > Wayne > > On 7/31/2018 5:34 PM, Andrew Lutsenko wrote: > > Removing or renaming operator<< does not work because > it is used by > > boost test suite in qa/geometry/test_fillet.cpp > > > > But I found an easier solution. There is no need to > have friend > > declaration in VECTOR2 class at all because it's > fields are public anyway. > > I removed that declaration but kept operator<< > implementation and that > > compiles just fine. Tested on debian8 and msys2. > > > > If this solution is acceptable to you, see my amended > patch attached. > > > > Andrew > > > > > > On Tue, Jul 31, 2018 at 1:01 PM Wayne Stambaugh > <stambau...@gmail.com <mailto:stambau...@gmail.com> > > <mailto:stambau...@gmail.com > <mailto:stambau...@gmail.com>>> wrote: > > > > If option 2 is the only option that works, please > make sure to set the > > minimum swig version in the cmake file that finds > swig. I would rather > > the config fail then the build fail because an > unusable version of swig > > is found. > > > > On 7/31/2018 2:57 PM, Andrew Lutsenko wrote: > > > I will test later today both options > > > 1. Removing VECTOR2::operator<< or renaming it > to str() if it's used. > > > 2. Upgrading to swig 3.0.10 from backports. > > > > > > Hopefully first is doable and would be > transparent for users. > > > Second one should definitely solve the issue and > I feel like > > compared to > > > other hoops a user has to jump through to make > KiCad compile on > > debian8 > > > this would not be the worst. > > > > > > Regards, > > > Andrew > > > > > > On Tue, Jul 31, 2018 at 11:32 AM Wayne Stambaugh > > <stambau...@gmail.com > <mailto:stambau...@gmail.com> > <mailto:stambau...@gmail.com <mailto:stambau...@gmail.com>> > > > <mailto:stambau...@gmail.com > <mailto:stambau...@gmail.com> > <mailto:stambau...@gmail.com > <mailto:stambau...@gmail.com>>>> wrote: > > > > > > On 7/31/2018 1:13 PM, Seth Hillbrand wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Am Di., 31. Juli 2018 um 07:31 Uhr schrieb > Wayne Stambaugh > > > > <stambau...@gmail.com > <mailto:stambau...@gmail.com> > <mailto:stambau...@gmail.com <mailto:stambau...@gmail.com>> > > <mailto:stambau...@gmail.com > <mailto:stambau...@gmail.com> > <mailto:stambau...@gmail.com <mailto:stambau...@gmail.com>>> > > > <mailto:stambau...@gmail.com > <mailto:stambau...@gmail.com> > <mailto:stambau...@gmail.com <mailto:stambau...@gmail.com>> > > <mailto:stambau...@gmail.com > <mailto:stambau...@gmail.com> > <mailto:stambau...@gmail.com > <mailto:stambau...@gmail.com>>>>>: > > > > > > > > On 7/31/2018 8:33 AM, Carsten > Schoenert wrote: > > > > > Am 31.07.18 um 17:50 schrieb Andrew > Lutsenko: > > > > > ... > > > > >> Can swig on the qa machine be > updated? Or better yet > > can you > > > > upgrade to > > > > >> debian 9? Debian 9 has swig 3.0.10 > and compiles this > > just fine. > > > > >> Aside from this debian 8 is very > old and should be done > > > away with > > > > anyway > > > > >> because of security, old compilers, > etc. > > > > > > > > > > Argumentation by missing security > isn't a valid > > choice, even > > > now the > > > > > ELTS team is taking care of security > updates, old versions > > > can be > > > > solved > > > > > by using backports, even swig has > 3.0.10 in > > > jessie-backports. I agree > > > > > that GCC wont become any version > updates for Jessie. > > > > > > > > > > But there are still users out there > which use Jessie based > > > desktops. > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm siding with Carsten on this. > There are people who > > prefer > > > stable > > > > computing platforms and I want to > avoid making kicad only > > > build on the > > > > latest distros. I prefer that we keep > as large of a target > > > audience as > > > > possible. How difficult would it be > to change the > > > SHAPE_LINE_CHAIN > > > > object (actually its the VECTOR2 > object that causes the swig > > > issue) so > > > > that older versions of swig don't > choke on it? I would be > > > open to that > > > > solution. > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > > > > > Wayne > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm not sure I follow the discussion. I > thought Carsten > > was saying > > > > that jessie-backports does have SWIG > 3.0.10 and so we can > > upgrade swig > > > > on the kicad-qa without changing to a > newer debian. > > > > > > I was operating under the assumption that > not every user will > > track or > > > want to track Debian backports so in this > case the user would > > still only > > > have the older version of swig. The line of > code that is > > causing swig > > > to choke is the VECTOR2 << operator which > I'm almost sure is > > being used > > > for debugging output and therefore could > easily be removed without > > > issue. I'm not sure that there are not > other swig related > > issues in the > > > SHAPE_LINE_CHAIN implementation this change > may not be > > enough. If we > > > are going to use a version of swig that > works with the current > > code, we > > > should set the cmake find package minimum > version of swig to > > the correct > > > version. I'm fine either way. Others may > not be fine with this. > > > > > > > > > > > @Andrew - can you compile your changes on > debian 8 using the > > swig from > > > > backports as Carsten described? If not, > then this is moot and > > > we'd need > > > > to look at a SWIG-specific VECTOR2, an > outcome that might be > > long-term > > > > problematic. > > > > > > > > -S > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Mailing list: > https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers > <https://launchpad.net/%7Ekicad-developers> > > <https://launchpad.net/%7Ekicad-developers> > > > <https://launchpad.net/%7Ekicad-developers> > > > Post to : > kicad-developers@lists.launchpad.net > <mailto:kicad-developers@lists.launchpad.net> > > <mailto:kicad-developers@lists.launchpad.net > <mailto:kicad-developers@lists.launchpad.net>> > > > <mailto:kicad-developers@lists.launchpad.net > <mailto:kicad-developers@lists.launchpad.net> > > <mailto:kicad-developers@lists.launchpad.net > <mailto:kicad-developers@lists.launchpad.net>>> > > > Unsubscribe : > https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers > <https://launchpad.net/%7Ekicad-developers> > > <https://launchpad.net/%7Ekicad-developers> > > > <https://launchpad.net/%7Ekicad-developers> > > > More help : > https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers > Post to : kicad-developers@lists.launchpad.net > Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers > More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp > _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers Post to : kicad-developers@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
