Subject: Re: [linux-audio-dev] User Interface
From: Nick Bailey (n.j.bailey_AT_elec.gla.ac.uk)
Date: Fri Jul 27 2001 - 10:37:18 EEST
ljp wrote:
> 7/26/2001 23:30:38, Paul Davis <pbd_AT_Op.Net> wrote:
> >
> >Why don't I make my libraries available as RPMs or debian packages?
> >Because I have better things to do with my development time than
> >rebuilding, reuploading, re-doing a web page every time I fix a bug in
> >a library. Thats why Ardour is currently a developer only system, and
> >its why I use CVS, because I assume that developers will be happy
> >using CVS because of the ease and low cost of updating it provides.
> >
>
> Ya, I hear you there. I totally understand. I still want to try ardour, but I have better things to do than hunt down/install all the libs required.
> Like keep my OWN applications up to date.
There are people about who would be happy to package things, (eg me, if you are prepared to risk putting anything I packaged on your system 8-) but the fact is ardour
needs ALSA beta 6. Current Debian Sid (unstable) release is at beta 4. If I recompile ALSA from source, I'll have to compile very many other debian-packaged
alsa-compatible programs as well, possibly patching them, and that's beyond the call of duty. In fact, that's put me off even trying to run Ardour for quite some
time now. I've even just bought some hardware (a twin K7 1.2GHz with an RME soundcard amongst other things) to run it on! If it was a "higher-level" library than
ALSA being unstable, then that would be one thing. But with audio apps, it's almost as bad as if libc were to keep changing radically the whole time.
One day, ALSA will stabilise, and everybody will be much happier. It is a pretty basic requirement for developing a sound app, that the basic sound API is stable,
after all...
Nick/
Nick/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Fri Jul 27 2001 - 10:38:33 EEST