Never mind. I forgot that I had installed cmake 3.22 in /usr/local. I just queried the installed version and assumed that was what I was using. Sorry for the noise.
On Wed, Jan 4, 2023 at 1:30 PM William Ferguson <wpfergu...@gmail.com> wrote: > I just built current master on Ubuntu 20.04 with cmake 3.16.1, without any > problems. > > On Wed, Jan 4, 2023 at 1:21 PM Mica Semrick <m...@silentumbrella.com> > wrote: > >> Can you not just be polite though? Do we want the default reply here to >> be "gruff with loosely associated facts?" >> >> Essentially the question of "what happened to xxx package" was met with a >> multi paragraph rant about LTS and Ubuntu and whatever. It didn't provide >> the answer but instead veered off on it's own direction. >> >> Not a great way to start the new year, if I'm honest. >> >> -m >> >> On January 4, 2023 9:57:39 AM PST, "ja...@activimetrics.com" < >> ja...@activimetrics.com> wrote: >>> >>> For what its worth, I read Matthias Andree's responses as perfectly >>> reasonable. Yes the words were not exceedingly polite, but the gruffness >>> was backed with explanation. I certainly did not read any ad hominem >>> attacks. >>> >>> I was always of the opinion that if you stick with an LTS version of a >>> distro, you are stuck with *exactly* what the distro decides is worthy >>> of LTS support. >>> >>> Especially in this new world of flatpaks. >>> >>> For the record, I run slackware since forever, so building code from >>> source as a package is something I have to do now and then. I would never >>> dream of asking the darktable devs to maintain a slackware SlackBuild, let >>> alone an installable package. >>> >>> And when Mr. Volkerding and the inner slackware cabal decide that it is >>> time to release a new version, one upgrades shortly thereafter. >>> >>> Regards, and back to lurking, >>> >>> James >>> >>> On Wed, Jan 04, 2023 at 07:43:10AM -0800, Mica Semrick wrote: >>> >>> You're making a lot of assumptions here. Seems like you have some deeper >>> issue than someone asking a simple question about support. Maybe a break >>> from the computer is in order. >>> >>> Happy new year -m >>> >>> On January 4, 2023 7:33:59 AM PST, Matthias Andree >>> matthias.and...@gmx.de wrote: >Am 04.01.23 um 15:58 schrieb Mica >>> Semrick: >> This answer is a bit rude and doesn't answer the original >>> query. > >It may be rude if you consider "who cares" rude, and prevents >>> people >from wasting their time while pointing out the actual issue, which >>> is >"old distro" which is too old to build darktable 4.2. > >> There is an >>> unmet dependency in Ubuntu 20.04 and the latest release >> can no longer be >>> built. See >> >>> https://discuss.pixls.us/t/what-happened-with-the-obs-builds/33588/2?u=darix >>> for >>> >> more information. > >Thanks for mass-confirming what I was writing. > >>> >And scared users in that thread posted in November 2022, 7 months after >>> >release, that they still considered Ubuntu "new", when 22.04.1 was out >>> >and from-LTS-to-next-LTS upgrades had been enabled. Exactly the kind of >>> >support open-source maintainers want to be distracted with. I haven't >>> >even looked whether the OBS people are the same as the darktable people, >>> >but you'd think it best to move things forward rather than tying them up >>> >in the past. > >The thing is you can't have the cake and eat it, so >>> everyone please stop >pretending they could. > >Ubuntu 20.04 (code-named >>> focal fossa) shipped darktable 3.0, and >darktable being in the "universe" >>> community-unmaintained package set... >being stuck with older darktable is >>> a choice that people made by NOT >upgrading their Ubuntu LTS in the past >>> three months. > >>> https://packages.ubuntu.com/search?suite=focal&searchon=names&keywords=darktable >>> > >And it's also either you choose a Ubuntu LTS distro and live with >>> >whatever unmaintained ("universe") package came with it, and be stuck >>> >with it, or you pick something that installs an app and all its distro >>> >deps redundantly in a distro (snap or flatpack, if available) with all >>> >the drawbacks of its isolation and bulk, or you need to move to a distro >>> >that is up to speed if your interest is "new software" and integrates >>> >such quickly. Rolling or frequent releases and distros exist, but that's >>> >not Ubuntu LTS, and possibly no Debian-based distro at all. > >Having said >>> that, Fedora 37 or FreeBSD 13.1 built darktable 4.2 nicely >for me. > >I >>> wonder why all the world can expect everyone to maintain every new >package >>> for their museum piece of desktop distro install and NOT be >considered >>> rude. Expecting someone to maintain software or packages >thereof for older >>> distros, on a voluntary basis, free of charge, is what >I consider egoistic >>> and rude. It is an enormous waste of resources. > > >>> >___________________________________________________________________________ >>> >darktable developer mailing list >to unsubscribe send a mail to >>> darktable-dev+unsubscr...@lists.darktable.org > >>> ------------------------------ >>> >>> darktable developer mailing list to unsubscribe send a mail to >>> darktable-dev+unsubscr...@lists.darktable.org >>> >>> >> ___________________________________________________________________________ >> darktable developer mailing list to unsubscribe send a mail to >> darktable-dev+unsubscr...@lists.darktable.org >> > ___________________________________________________________________________ darktable developer mailing list to unsubscribe send a mail to darktable-dev+unsubscr...@lists.darktable.org
