I think that means that I would have to switch from my bare source release style to releasing an autotools-source-release. And then anyhow throwing the autotools-source-release into the compiled releases.
cheers M
On Sun, Dec 03, 2017 at 12:15:37AM +0100, Dan Wilcox wrote:
Despite popular opinion, an auto tools source release has already created the configure script so users do *not* need to run the autotools themselves, just ./configure && make.
One difference is that the mac and windows releases rely on a slightly different folder structure than that of the expected auto tools install (ie. Unix-style layout). In this case, one option is to leave everything in a source directory as suggested and then have a separate installer script which puts things into the right place. IMO it's easier to let configure/make do their jobs and extra stuff like this is better handled by installing into a temp directory and/or using a script to put things "in the right place".
It's totally possible and probably the next step after the Windows build is ironed out. (We are working on it: https://github.com/pure-data/pure-data/issues/25#issuecomment-348724495 https://github.com/pure-data/pure-data/issues/25#issuecomment-348724495)
On Dec 3, 2017, at 12:08 AM, Miller Puckette msp@ucsd.edu wrote:
You'd no longer just be able to change something and hit 'make' - instead you'd have to download the whole autotools horrorshow and do it the "official" way.
Dan Wilcox @danomatika http://twitter.com/danomatika danomatika.com http://danomatika.com/ robotcowboy.com http://robotcowboy.com/