[svlug] qtparted-0.5.0 missing something still...

Michael Eager eager at eagercon.com
Sat Nov 28 15:32:07 PST 2015


On 11/28/2015 11:01 AM, Michael C. Robinson wrote:
> On Sat, 2015-11-28 at 11:32 +0100, Ivan Sergio Borgonovo wrote:
>> On 11/28/2015 04:54 AM, Michael C. Robinson wrote:
>>
>>> I am suspecting that there is something wrong with my parted
>>> installation.  If there is enough information in the attached
>>> output to
>>> make an educated guess, great.  If not, how can I get the
>>> information I
>>
>> «
>>> /home/michael/qtparted-0.5.0/src/qp_libparted.cpp: In member
>>> function ‘void QP_LibParted::get_filesystem(QP_FileSystem*)’:
>>> /home/michael/qtparted-0.5.0/src/qp_libparted.cpp:718:48: error:
>>> ‘PedFileSystemOps’ has no member named ‘create’
>>                                         walk->ops->create,
>> »

This is simple, elementary C/C++ debugging.  The message is clear, there
is no member in the class.

The next question is "how come?"

>> Yeah in fact there are. My suspicion is that qparted is too old or
>> libparted is too new and PedFileSystemOps has changed signature as
>> you
>> may guess from
>
>> http://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/parted.git/tree/libparted/fs/ext2/in
>> terface.c
>
>> Last release of qtparted is 10 years old!!! Last commit to parted has
>> 1
>> month.

This is the answer to "how come?"  It required a little bit of
searching online.

What isn't obvious to me is why you cannot answer this question without
extraordinary amounts of help, or at least, make a minimal attempt to do so.

>> Seriously.
>> It really makes me wonder what made you believe you could write
>> you're a
>> C/C++ expert in your CV.
>> I'm sorry but this is a reality check.
>
> I studied C/C++ as part of my degree where we didn't go into make
> very much.  I can write simple make files, but understanding automake,
> autoconf, and configure is way beyond what the undergraduate curriculum
> covered.  You don't have to know how to google from make errors for the
> most part to compile packages that are in the book.  Of course,
> qtparted isn't in the book.  I say there is a significant difference
> between being able to work with configure, automake, C/C++, and
> autoconf verses being able to just code in C/C++ and maybe write a
> simple make file.  I see nothing wrong with my CV considering that I
> don't list autoconf, automake, and configure.

An expert is not someone who took an overview course in a language
as an undergraduate.

BTW, there's nothing in the bug you encountered that has even the
remotest connection to automake or autoconf.

>> If you want to improve your diagnostic skills for C/C++ I'd start to
>> write simple programs in C/C++ that use libraries and *build*
>> libraries.
>> No matter how simple the library you may write could be, do it as an
>> exercise to understand how linking works and how libraries and
>> headers are found.
>
> You can be a good C/C++ programmer and not know how to write libraries.
> That is not in the undergraduate curriculum unfortunately.

You cannot be a good C/C++ programmer without the ability to
read and interpret compiler error messages.  Learning to build
libraries is not an advanced topic; it's standard practice for
the journeyman programmer.  Anyone who can claim to be an expert
in C/C++ should be able to create a library and know how one
is used.

>> Then take some simple program written by someone else that uses
>> libraries and examine carefully the source and the make file.
>
> Assuming the make file isn't practically a program full of macros that
> I can read, this is reasonable advice.  In reality, shell expansion and
> other things can happen to make files and they are often too cryptic
> for a person to understand them without perhaps seeing a compiled
> version of the make file without macros and shell expansions.

Macros are widely used in makefiles.  Learn how to use them.

> Well, first I'm accused of not providing enough information and now too
> much information.  I don't think 10k of log is too much.  If you
> don't know what's relevant, you kinda have to include the whole log.
> Seems worthwhile to me to learn how to determine if a package is being
> maintained or not when working with the source code for it.

You might take a look at the log and attempt to understand the
errors before posting it.

In fact, you don't provide a complete log.  What was the command
you entered?  What was the command to the compiler?  You might have
to do some investigation to find the latter, since the makefile
didn't print out each command.


> I've never seen a google manual.  That I get anything out of google I'd
> say is pretty decent considering.
>
>> oh and if you think I'm a presumptuous disrespectful bastard that is
>> just taking joke of you, that's your MAIN problem.
>
> How does that last statement convince me that the rest is worth
> reading?  How does this convince me that anything you say is worth
> reading if I can get it from someone else who is more professional in
> how they address me?  Okay, so I'm less than a novice when it comes to
> make, writing libraries, system programming in general, automake,
> autoconf, and configure.  I never claimed on my CV to have any
> understanding of automake, autoconf, writing libraries, system
> programming, or configure.  I only claimed to have C/C++ skill.

So far, you have not persuaded anyone here that you have that.


-- 
Michael Eager	 eager at eagercon.com
1960 Park Blvd., Palo Alto, CA 94306  650-325-8077




More information about the svlug mailing list