[PD-dev] Pd 0.48 app bundle without src dir

[Miller Puckette]

I'd like to distribute sources.  I believe they're included in the Windows
releases but not in the Mac ones.  Also, if we move to an autotools Windows
build (which I think we'll have to in order to accomodate 64-bit Windows
builds) the sources won't be included.

One possibility would be to include the source distribution tarball in the
distributed Mac and Windows versions.  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.  I don't like that idea much but
perhaps it's better than nothing.   At any rate, at least for the sake of
archival completeness it would be better that way.

cheers
Miller

On Sat, Dec 02, 2017 at 09:54:29PM +0100, katja wrote:
> Hi, since Pd 0.48-1 will be released soon I wonder if there will be a
> source dir in the Windows and OSX distributions?
> 
> Katja
> 
> On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 6:16 PM, Miller Puckette <msp at ucsd.edu> wrote:
> > It's ugly :)
> >
> > I'm using Dan's autotools setup to build the i386 and ia64 MacOS versions,
> > and my own ad hoc system (makefile.mac) to build for PPC.
> >
> > I was sorry to see the capability to recompile-within-the-app disappear
> > but I think the way the autotools build system works makes this much more
> > awkward (you have to run 'make install' to get the file tree in a state where
> > Pd can find its support files).
> >
> > My original intent in supplying the source files as part of the distro was
> > also to provide an archival trace for anyone wanting to run a Pd application
> > (such as a piece of music) far in the future, when it might be hard to find
> > sources for a particular version of Pd.  I still really like the idea of
> > being able to easily make a fully-documented realization of a piece of music
> > by supplying patches and a version of Pd (and all non-vanilla extensions used)
> > in a single file tree.
> >
> > For windows, I'm still using my old scripts, not autotools, but I want to
> > re-think that for the next version, particularly in order to be able to
> > make a 64-bit version for windows.  I'm agonizing over what t_float size
> > to use - I could make it 64 by default (and later once I've figured out
> > how to manage it, start offering 64-bit-float for linux and Mac too :)
> >
> > Miller
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 11:10:35AM +0200, Dan Wilcox wrote:
> >> As far as I know, the release builds still use Miller's makefiles. The mac build just now uses the mac/osx-app.sh script to generate the .app. I checked the windows download and it includes everything as before.
> >>
> >> > On Aug 16, 2017, at 10:52 AM, katja <katjavetter at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Dan, the new documentations are great!
> >> >
> >> > Is it the case that Miller switched from 'old build system'
> >> > (makefile.mac etc.) to autotools between 0.47-* and 0.48-*? That would
> >> > explain why a simple rebuild within the app bundle was feasible at the
> >> > time of PdCon16~, while it is not even technically possible currently.
> >> > The makefile.mac is a source file, while makefile(s) from an autotools
> >> > build system are not, so no way to 'cd to the source directory and hit
> >> > make' as it was phrased in the PdCon presentation.
> >> >
> >> > I'm slowly starting to understand that the lost option to rebuild
> >> > within the app bundle is a logical consequence of switching from one
> >> > build method to the other. And including the complete source files is
> >> > of no use then. So I rest my case!
> >> >
> >> > By the way I wonder if the same is going on with the Windows package?
> >> >
> >> > Katja
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 2:44 PM, Dan Wilcox <danomatika at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> And to clarify, this "I guess what I don't understand is the need for both a
> >> >> source tarball and a .app which includes all the sources." does not mean I
> >> >> am against making any changes and am against source distributions. It's only
> >> >> a question really as I've not needed that kind of feature, personally.
> >> >>
> >> >> On Aug 15, 2017, at 2:18 PM, Dan Wilcox <danomatika at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> Also, the steps are outlined in the greatly updated INSTALL.txt:
> >> >> https://github.com/pure-data/pure-data/blob/master/INSTALL.txt
> >> >>
> >> >> On Aug 15, 2017, at 2:15 PM, Dan Wilcox <danomatika at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> One thing to note: IOhannes and I removed the generated autotools files
> >> >> (configure, m4 stuff, Makefile, Makefile.in) so the source tarball should
> >> >> behave without having to change anything by hand. The configure script was
> >> >> *greatly* updated to facilitate this as well. It should work whether inside
> >> >> the .app or not.
> >> >>
> >> >> I guess what I don't understand is the need for both a source tarball and a
> >> >> .app which includes all the sources. It should be possible now to build Pd
> >> >> on Mac 10.6 to 10.12 (and soon 10.13) with the same steps.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> --------
> >> >> Dan Wilcox
> >> >> @danomatika
> >> >> danomatika.com
> >> >> robotcowboy.com
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >>
> >> --------
> >> Dan Wilcox
> >> @danomatika <http://twitter.com/danomatika>
> >> danomatika.com <http://danomatika.com/>
> >> robotcowboy.com <http://robotcowboy.com/>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Pd-dev mailing list
> >> Pd-dev at lists.iem.at
> >> https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev
> >