Newer OpenEXR versions add a suffix to the libraries file names.
ECM can now detect OpenEXR 2.3 and newer versions.
Details
- Reviewers
- None
kimageformats detects OpenEXR 2.3 and 2.4
Diff Detail
- Repository
- R240 Extra CMake Modules
- Branch
- master
- Lint
No Linters Available - Unit
No Unit Test Coverage - Build Status
Buildable 18791 Build 18809: arc lint + arc unit
Note: openEXR >= 2.4 provides CMake configuration modules (OpenEXRConfig.cmake and IlmBaseConfig.cmake). We could also look for those and use the current code as a fallback if the modules can't be found
This is a bug in openexr. It does actually try to install the unsuffixed symlinks, but it doesn't take DESTDIR into account, so it tries to install them to the root filesystem instead of doing so inside DESTDIR as it should. It is fixed in https://github.com/openexr/openexr/commit/4e54bde78f65c0fef8a9f794aaacea07813fba09
I don't see how that commit is related.
openEXR 2.3 installs libXXX.so and 2.4 installs libXXX-2_4.so
This is expected afaics.
I don't see how that commit is related.
openEXR 2.3 installs libXXX.so and 2.4 installs libXXX-2_4.soThis is expected afaics.
No, it's not. That line in openexr is supposed to link libXXX-2_4.so (${verlibname}) to libXXX.so (${baselibname}) but it does so in the wrong dir
The pkgconfig file disagrees:
it contains libsuffix=-2_4 and later Libs: -L${libdir} -lIlmImf${libsuffix}
For me, that library name is correct
The pkgconfig file disagrees:
it contains libsuffix=-2_4 and later Libs: -L${libdir} -lIlmImf${libsuffix}
For me, that library name is correct
I didn't say that the suffixed .so shouldn't exist. They are *both* supposed to be installed: the suffixed one and the unsuffixed one which is a symlink to the suffixed one. IOW, your patch is not wrong, it just wouldn't be necessary if it weren't for the openexr bug which is fixed in the linked commit