Closed sandeepb2013 closed 6 months ago
That is expected; our binary provider doesn't currently build for S390x. But you can head over to https://github.com/bblanchon/pdfium-binaries/issues and ask the author whether he's willing to add support for S390x, then I could incorporate it in pypdfium2.
AFAIK, S390x is somewhat uncommon in the PyPI world, though. Not even pillow or pikepdf build for it. You might have more luck on Anaconda (S390x is in their default build matrix), but they don't really provide (py)pdfium, aside from a feedstock that repacks the pdfium-binaries.
Otherwise, you could try to build pdfium from source (I don't know whether Google's toolchain supports S390x as build host). But you should use a recent version of pypdfium2 for that, not 0.7.0 (who depends on that old version, I wonder?).
Another hint: If you have libreoffice, you might be able to simply use the pdfium binary it ships with.
For me that is /usr/lib/libreoffice/program/libpdfiumlo.so
. Just symlink to /usr/local/lib/libpdfium.so
or something, determine the pdfium version, and then install with system-provided binary.
Regarding the failure of implicit sourcebuild, this seems to be due to outdated patches. I can see it's a bit problematic we're using latest pdfium with potentially non-latest patches.
Newer versions do not trigger an implicit sourcebuild anymore if no binary was found. I think it's better for callers to consciously invoke the build process if desired.
Hi @mara004 ,
Thanks for quick response. https://github.com/bblanchon/pdfium-binaries/issues/93. `Possible values
Yes, these are the architectures listed by the toolchain's help, and s390x
is among them.
But what do you want to express with that? Again, as for adding a binary package, you'd have to discuss that with upstream. The binaries aren't built here, just repacked with a python wrapper.
Closing; further actions are up to affected users, pdfium-binaries and pdfium.
Checklist
pypdfium2
fromPyPI
orGitHub/pypdfium2-team
.Description
Install Info
Validity