sigil 0.8.1 building on linux

[blackest]

ok heres what i've done so far.
downloaded the qt online installer
running as a user it installs to \home\user\Qt
if you sudo it installs to opt/Qt a better location.

http://www.cmake.org/download/
sudo /bin/sh cmake-3.0.2-Linux-i386.sh
extracted the cmake files which i copied into /usr/ overwriting the 2.8 version of cmake
this does not seem ideal but it works.

i unpacked the sigil0.8.1 archive and created the build and run folders in there
then in sigil-0.8.1/
cmake -G "Unix Makefiles" -DCMAKE_PREFIX_PATH=/opt/Qt/5.3/gcc/lib/cmake -DCMAKE_INSTALL_PREFIX=~/Sigil-0.8.1/run -DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE=Release -DFORCE_BUNDLED_COPIES=1 ~/Sigil-0.8.1/

this built the config (few seconds really to do this)
then ran
make
(i think i initially did this in Sigil-0.8.1/build/ )
and then
make install

only its not quite working i can click on the sigil binary and it works but its not in my path
I tried check install but that fails.

Can anyone help me build it properly?

cheers

[DiapDealer]

I think you have it built properly if it runs. It doesn't need to be in your path to work.

If you want it to be in your path then either create a symlink in /usr/bin or /usr/local/bin to the sigil binary in your ~/Sigil-0.8.1/run/bin folder, or eliminate the "-DCMAKE_INSTALL_PREFIX=~Sigil-0..8.1/run" from your original cmake command and use:

"sudo make install"

to install Sigil to the /usr/local prefix. The Sigil binary (/usr/local/bin/sigil) will be in your path.

[eschwartz]

Yeah, installing it into the ~/Sigil-0.8.1/run/ folder will put the binary in the bin/ folder of the install location.

compiling programs into $HOME will always require you to setup the path manually.

[blackest]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

I think you have it built properly if it runs. It doesn't need to be in your path to work.

If you want it to be in your path then either create a symlink in /usr/bin or /usr/local/bin to the sigil binary in your ~/Sigil-0.8.1/run/bin folder, or eliminate the "-DCMAKE_INSTALL_PREFIX=~Sigil-0..8.1/run" from your original cmake command and use:

"sudo make install"

to install Sigil to the /usr/local prefix. The Sigil binary (/usr/local/bin/sigil) will be in your path.

That isn't quite how you do it thou is it?
/usr/local/bin/sigil is a script which sets up the qt lib locations and then runs /usr/local/share/sigil/sigil-real

There is also a warn on compilation
"/src/Sigil/Misc/PluginDB.cpp:101:18: warning: unused variable ‘plugin’ [-Wunused-variable]
Plugin *plugin;
"

cheers other than that it seems without problems.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by blackest

That isn't quite how you do it thou is it?
/usr/local/bin/sigil is a script which sets up the qt lib locations and then runs /usr/local/share/sigil/sigil-real

That's not how I do it in my binary package, no. But I'm also distributing and relocating the Qt libs, so the script is necessary. You're free to create a similar script if you like.

There is also a warn on compilation
"/src/Sigil/Misc/PluginDB.cpp:101:18: warning: unused variable ‘plugin’ [-Wunused-variable]
Plugin *plugin;
"

Compilation warnings are not errors. Ignore them.

[Toxaris]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Compilation warnings are not errors. Ignore them.

Dangerous advice... This surely depends on the warning. Some problems can appear as warning, but are errors instead. It really depends on the warning.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by Toxaris

Dangerous advice... This surely depends on the warning.

Dangerous? Hardly. The worst that can happen is the program won't work. In all my years of compiling stuff on Linux, I've never really encountered a warning that affected the final result -- IF the compilation process ultimately finished successfully. And I've rarely compiled any large projects where there weren't warnings along the way (especially with code that's going to be compiled with multiple compilers on multiple platforms). Cavalier?? Possibly ... but not dangerous. Especially when I'm familiar with blackest's particular warning and know that it can be safely ignored. So I have no problem telling anyone who ended up with a functioning version of Sigil that they can ignore any warnings they may have encountered during compilation. Welcome to cross-platform compilation.

Perhaps I should have said; "ignore them until they won't allow you to ignore them any more," but that seems like a given to me. *shrug*

[Toxaris]

Well, not quite. Perhaps in this case it cannot do much harm, but I have experience otherwise for other programs. In those cases there was usually also a warning about a missing library or function but the program compiled and did run. However, there was a major issue with the programs and a big loss of data as a result... A warning is not always a warning.
In this particular case I totally agree with you, it is not important and indeed there are almost always warnings. However, unless you are familiar with the warnings, investigation should be done.

[DiapDealer]

Fair enough. Further investigation is never going to hurt someone in any case.

[blackest]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Fair enough. Further investigation is never going to hurt someone in any case.

It only appears to be the one warning, a pointer that is created but not used.

maybe it was a left over from an experiment or it is needed on another platform. The sigil source is very clean (just one warning seems to be exceptional in most projects).

i only really mentioned it for completeness. sigil feels rock solid in this update.