abiword: ‘struct png_info_struct’ has no member named ‘trans’

[rudloff@…]

I get a lot of errors like this when trying to build Abiword:

../../wv/magick/png.c:3767: error: ‘struct png_info_struct’ has no member named ‘trans_values’
../../wv/magick/png.c:3768: error: ‘struct png_info_struct’ has no member named ‘trans_values’
../../wv/magick/png.c:3769: error: ‘struct png_info_struct’ has no member named ‘trans_values’
../../wv/magick/png.c:3770: error: ‘struct png_info_struct’ has no member named ‘trans_values’
../../wv/magick/png.c:3777: error: ‘struct png_info_struct’ has no member named ‘trans’
../../wv/magick/png.c:3779: error: ‘struct png_info_struct’ has no member named ‘trans’
../../wv/magick/png.c:3784: error: ‘struct png_info_struct’ has no member named ‘trans’
../../wv/magick/png.c:3785: error: ‘struct png_info_struct’ has no member named ‘trans_values’
../../wv/magick/png.c:3785: error: ‘struct png_info_struct’ has no member named ‘trans_values’
../../wv/magick/png.c:3785: error: ‘struct png_info_struct’ has no member named ‘trans_values’
../../wv/magick/png.c:3785: error: ‘struct png_info_struct’ has no member named ‘trans_values’

[ryandesign@…]

libpng 1.4.x incompatibility. These fields just need to be renamed. The abiword port is really out of date however. See #17012 filed three years ago requesting the port be updated.

[ryandesign@…]

r87422. It still doesn't build though, now complaining "libole2/ms-ole.c:18:28: error: libole2/ms-ole.h: No such file or directory". It's probably pointless to work further on patching this old version; someone should instead try to update the port to the latest version.

[rudloff@…]

Would it be worth it to create a port for libole2 ?

[ryandesign@…]

No. This is not a port. This is code that's in the abiword source distribution.

Fixed that error in r87424 by adding -I. at the start of cppflags. Next error is:

./libole2/ms-ole.h:80: error: expected specifier-qualifier-list before ‘ssize_t’

We could probably sit here for a long time fixing these errors, and in the end, we'd end up with a 5-year-old piece of software. All this has probably already been fixed upstream years ago. It would be better to update the port to the current version.