|Hans-Christoph Steiner||Feb 27, 2003 4:54 pm|
|Frank Barknecht||Feb 28, 2003 1:28 am|
|guenter geiger||Feb 28, 2003 1:29 am|
|guenter geiger||Feb 28, 2003 1:38 am|
|Frank Barknecht||Feb 28, 2003 3:25 am|
|guenter geiger||Feb 28, 2003 4:05 am|
|Frank Barknecht||Feb 28, 2003 4:40 am|
|Hans-Christoph Steiner||Feb 28, 2003 7:24 am|
|Hans-Christoph Steiner||Feb 28, 2003 10:52 am|
|guenter geiger||Mar 1, 2003 11:31 am|
|smoerk||Mar 1, 2003 12:07 pm|
|Frank Barknecht||Mar 2, 2003 1:28 am|
|Daniel Heckenberg||Mar 2, 2003 4:16 pm|
|guenter geiger||Mar 3, 2003 3:25 am|
|guenter geiger||Mar 3, 2003 3:27 am|
|Frank Barknecht||Mar 3, 2003 5:02 am|
|guenter geiger||Mar 3, 2003 7:26 am|
|Frank Barknecht||Mar 3, 2003 7:42 am|
|Subject:||Re: [PD-dev] file releases on sourceforge|
|From:||Frank Barknecht (fb...@footils.org)|
|Date:||Mar 2, 2003 1:28:07 am|
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~.
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.
-- Frank Barknecht _ ______footils.org__