[PD-dev] Re: PD-cvs Digest, Vol 10, Issue 15

[Frank Barknecht]

Hallo,
Hans-Christoph Steiner hat gesagt: // Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:

> But the key points that you are overlooking is package building and  
> auto-building.  For example, the Debian auto-builders are not going to  
> add some tarball because we want them to.  There are no packages for  
> portaudio 19 from RedHat, Debian, or Fink (let alone MinGW or MSVC).   
> When looking at this, keeping these sources out of our CVS quite simply  
> creates a lot of manual labor that is boring and annoying at best.

I agree here, not only because I am a Debian user, but Debian is a
good example for the problem at hand: Debian has packages for
portaudio 0.18, no packages for whatever is considered to be PA 0.19
and Debian's portmidi is from 2004-11-17.

So for doing Debian packages of Pd we could either elect someone to
create portaudio packages that match our needs, or we'd need to make
Pd run with PA 0.18, as provided with Debian. Choose your poison! 

In the case of PA I think, that just keeping our own copy of PA is way
easier than both alternative solutions (that would need to be done for
Fedora, SuSE, Mandrake, Slackware, OS-X, etc. again.)

Those of you running Linux might remember, that the popular Ardour
harddisk recorder even kept a much bigger set of foreign libraries as
private versions in its own CVS just to make compiling (and later
packaging) *possible*. This included huge libraries like Gtkmm. 

PA obviously is a much smaller piece of software to maintain in
parallel than Gtkmm, so I think that as long as there is no proper
release of PA 0.19 at this place:
http://www.portaudio.com/download.html and as long as no proper
packages for major OSses exist, including it in Pd is much easier -
although of course it is not the clean solution in the long run: It's
a compromise.

Ciao
-- 
 Frank Barknecht                 _ ______footils.org_ __goto10.org__