[PD-dev] file releases on sourceforge

[guenter geiger]

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