Add support for libcamera v0.7.0#81
Merged
Merged
Conversation
Contributor
|
Thanks! |
This was referenced Feb 25, 2026
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
libcamera0.7.0 was released a few days ago, and Arch Linux has already switched to it, solibcamera-rsfails to build on it.This PR attempts to add support for the new version, but it's done somewhat blindly, so guidance would be appreciated!
All the changes in the
versioned_filesdirectory were done by runningregenerate.sh, which seemed like the intended way to do this.The only other code change in this PR is due to a change in mutability in a returned pointer:
Request::metadata()now takes and returns a const (C++) reference. I've reshuffled the calls to it to usecast_mutdue to the use ofNonNull, which as far as I can tell does not have aconstversion, but I'm unsure if there's a better way to do it. It seems safe to me, given that the return value ofmetadatais only ever turned into a&ControlList, but additional review would be appreciated - it feels kinda off to be casting the pointer to mutable and then immediately back to a const reference.