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

[katja]

On a platform where building Pd with autotools is just a matter of
hitting ./configure && make, the need for a 'self-replicating' binary
package seems to be obviated indeed. Frankly I didn't know it is so
easy, since INSTALL.txt for 0.48-0 still tells you to generate the
configure script. Will 0.48-1 be different in this respect?

There's another reason too I was bumping this topic: the changed API
path breaks build scripts of external libraries that have the path
hard-coded. Issues about this are still pending:

https://github.com/pure-data/pure-data/issues/181

https://github.com/pure-data/pd-lib-builder/issues/33

If the intention is to leave out sources from future binary
distributions for all platforms, would it be an idea to include a copy
of the API files in the old path (src) during a transition period, say
until the next major version?

Katja

On Sun, Dec 3, 2017 at 12:24 AM, Dan Wilcox <danomatika at gmail.com> wrote:
> Well, it's possible, but I'm not sure yet what the best way to do this might
> be. It's probably worth looking at other projects that do this. Perhaps
> IOhannes has some ideas working with Debian, etc. I'm less familiar with
> this approach as I'm used to downloading and building the source-only
> tarballs for other projects.
>
> Like a lot of things, there might be support for this style distribution in
> autoconf/automake and we just need to use it (hopefully). I'd say this might
> be more of a 0.49 goal.
>
> On Dec 3, 2017, at 12:20 AM, Miller Puckette <msp at ucsd.edu> wrote:
>
> 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 at 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/>
>
>
>
>
> --------
> Dan Wilcox
> @danomatika
> danomatika.com
> robotcowboy.com
>
>
>