[sword-devel] [bt-devel] Bibletime 2.0.alpha3 FTBFS with sword 1.6.0RC1 library

[Eeli Kaikkonen]

Troy A. Griffitts wrote:

> Did you see the other #ifdefs we have for av11n?  I believe we define 2 
> things in the sword cmake file to let you know if you are using the 
> newer version of the lib.  Maybe they should just be changed to 
> something like SWORD_1_6 now that we've committed to a 1.6.x branch.

That's true, I did a quick ugly fix, copying from the other definitions. 
I didn't read the changelog to see if it happens to declare those changes.

> 
> Yes, I'm hoping you added the call after actually checking that the user 
> has agreed to the disclaimer we suggest in #include<installmgr.h>.  This 
> is very important to protect against persecuted users unwittingly 
> revealing their use of Bible software to foes.

Unfortunately I have to destroy your hope here: we have only the static 
warning which doesn't have to be agreed. But I have already planned 
replacing it with a dynamic warning.

There is virtual int refreshRemoteSourceConfiguration(). Would it be 
enough if I override it, opening a dialog etc.? Now I just use 
setUserDisclaimerConfirmed(bool val). Is it so that the library calls 
refreshRemoteSourceConfiguration() before every network transaction? And 
what is the int return value?

> Sorry :)  This was coded before your last chastisement so it's already 
> covered by a grandfather clause.  I'll add comments, but basically, the 
> logic is in the example installmgr commandline tool at:
> 
> http://crosswire.org/svn/sword/trunk/utilities/installmgr.cpp
> 
> search for syncConfig

> The master list is just wrong.  I believe Karl and I were testing with 
> the list that is currently out there.  When we release a final API which 
> supports it, we will populate the master list with valid repos.

Combining these two, does it mean that the API will change? Or should I 
just read the installmgr or soon to come comments and use the existing API?


--Eeli Kaikkonen