Build fails on Node v0.7.5

[seanmcgary]

Building fails in Node v0.7.5. Root cause looks to be some changes that were made in libuv from Node v0.6.x to v0.7.x.

Stack trace of node-waf:

$ node-waf
Waf: Entering directory `./robotskirt/build'
[1/7] cc: src/markdown.c -> build/Release/src/markdown_1.o
[2/7] cc: src/array.c -> build/Release/src/array_1.o
[3/7] cc: src/buffer.c -> build/Release/src/buffer_1.o
[4/7] cc: src/html.c -> build/Release/src/html_1.o
[5/7] cxx: src/robotskirt.cc -> build/Release/src/robotskirt_2.o
/usr/local/include/node/uv-private/eio.h: In function ‘v8::Handle<v8::Value> ToHtmlAsync(const v8::Arguments&)’:
/usr/local/include/node/uv-private/eio.h:361: error: too few arguments to function ‘eio_req* eio_custom(void (*)(eio_req*), int, int (*)(eio_req*), void*, eio_channel*)’
../src/robotskirt.cc:60: error: at this point in file
Waf: Leaving directory `./robotskirt/build'
Build failed:  -> task failed (err #1): 
    {task: cxx robotskirt.cc -> robotskirt_2.o}

Heres the change to the NodeJS source that causes the problem: nodejs/node-v0.x-archive@dd0188e

Any chance of getting a fix for this to work with Node v0.7.x?

[benmills]

Thanks for letting me know, I'll take a look as soon as I can.

[mildsunrise]

Oops, just noticed my #17 is a duplicate of this.
That also happens to me. My environment:

• 64-bit Ubuntu
• Node version: v0.7.9-pre
• node-waf --version returns waf 1.5.16 (7610:7647M)

[mildsunrise]

Well, actually that's not a Robotskirt bug.
On recent Node versions, the UV library (which Node depends on)
has been updated. The new version also contained the last changes
to libeio. Thus, the new EIO API is different and it fails to build.

The history for the eio.h header can be found here.
I'll try to make a macro to adapt the code depending on the version.

[mildsunrise]

Anyway, the UV library does not longer depend on EIO --it has its own event functions.
Also, node-waf is no longer supported for building. We'll switch to node-gyp soon.

[mildsunrise]

With v2 of Robotskirt (now stable and published) there's [no asynchronous methods]#21 (comment))
at all, so this shouldn't be a problem.

Post any feedback on that at pull #21.