On Sun, 2 Mar 2003, Frank Barknecht wrote:
Hallo, guenter geiger hat gesagt: // guenter geiger wrote:
Ok, so what we will have to do (I know we talked about this when doing the debian packages, but this release should be general for GNU/Linux.
- pd-externals (all externals that do not depend on additional libraries except libc and libm)
compiled for:
- Linux
- OSX
- Windows
This sounds okay. Should we include the libraries there, maybe stripped into single externals? This way, we would automatically get rid of name-conflicts like abs~.
Sorry, I do not understand what you mean. You mean externals libraries ? I am against it. If we have confilicting externals (like abs~) we will just select the best one. Thats why I have made the build directory how it is. Do you think we should inlcude libraries ?
- flext
flext can be build to depend on libsndobj and/or stk. How to deal with that? STK might have a license problem (waveguide patents,...), so maybe it cant't be included into distributions like Debian. SndObj already is in Debian (Agnula). So I see two possibilities:
a) Build flext without SndObj and STK, but maybe have an explanation in a package README, how to compile it with the two. b) Build two packages, flext-pure and flext-synthesis (or flext-stk and flext-sndobj), including both.
I could live with a), but b) would make the inclusion of my syncgrain~ external easier, which depends on flext-sndobj.
- flext-externals
compiled for:
- Linux gcc2
- Linux gcc3 (Do we need both versions ??)
- OSX
- Windows
gcc2 seems to be hard to get right with flext. As oth RedHat and Debian (don't know about OS-X) now default to g++-3.x I wouldn't bother with g++-2.x.
Then there are some externals left that depend on libraries (like the ogg things). Should we compile them statically ?
I think, statically feels wrong for Linux, but it could be the right thing to do on Windows.
Ah, yes, ask everyone if it is ok to release the code as it is now.
Document installation (or add installer scripts ?) Should we release .rpm and .debs directly ?
That's what I would prefer. Or include the debs in Debian unstable and give the rpms to Planet CCRMA.
You are right, for Linux it is probably the best to release source only, with a Debian package and Fernando's rpm we cover almost everything.
Guenter