Hi
It bombs out with these:
...
Making all in libtransmission
make[1]: Entering directory `/cygdrive/d/Documenten/Downloads/transmission-2.00/libtransmission'
CC peer-io.o
CC peer-msgs.o
peer-msgs.c: In function ‘fillOutputBuffer’:
peer-msgs.c error: lvalue required as left operand of assignment
make[1]: *** [peer-msgs.o] Error 1
CC rpc-server.o
peer-io.c: In function ‘tr_evbuffer_write’:
peer-io.c:269: error: dereferencing pointer to incomplete type
make[1]: *** [peer-io.o] Error 1
rpc-server.c: In function ‘extract_parts_from_multipart’:
rpc-server.c:160: warning: passing argument 1 of ‘evbuffer_pullup’ discards qualifiers from pointer target type
rpc-server.c: In function ‘add_response’:
rpc-server.c:354: error: lvalue required as left operand of assignment
rpc-server.c:362: error: lvalue required as left operand of assignment
make[1]: *** [rpc-server.o] Error 1
...
Is this a problem at my end or should I file a bug report?
2.00 doesn't build on cygwin
Re: 2.00 doesn't build on cygwin
Solved by downgrading libevent. But now all my torrents are 'downloading from 0 of <xxx> connected peers'. Ah well.
Re: 2.00 doesn't build on cygwin
cygwin / mingw / win32 are not supported platforms at the moment.
However you may want to look at rb07's windows thread and see if he has any insights about what the problem might be... he's been doing some good work with libtransmission + mingw lately.
However you may want to look at rb07's windows thread and see if he has any insights about what the problem might be... he's been doing some good work with libtransmission + mingw lately.
Re: 2.00 doesn't build on cygwin
Looks like a problem at your end, I build it when it came out and there was not a single problem.nobody wrote:Is this a problem at my end or should I file a bug report?
Of course you may have to add the LIBEVENT_LIBS option to configure, and before that you have to build libevent (which also builds out of the box) but beware that you have to install libevent-1.4.14-stable, not the 2.x branch... but it sounds like you already did that.
Where are you seeing the "<xxx>" (whatever that is meant to portray)?