On 01/21/2014 01:06 PM, R. Mattes wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Jan 2014 12:40:23 +0000, Fons Adriaensen wrote
>> On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 05:55:04AM +0000, Filipe Coelho wrote:
>>
>>> I think we should stop assuming releasing source code is enough.
>> Enough for what ? Users who don't want to install from source
>> want packages made for the package manager of their distro,
>> which will take care of dependencies etc. You can't expcect a
>> developer to provide such packages for each and every distro.
>> I don't even provide them for the distro I use myself.
> Finally some wise words. Thanks.
> I think most posters so far totally underestimate the part of
> the distribution. Distributing software as part of a distribution
> is much more than just compiling the binary and putting it into
> a package.
Depending on your distribution, you might need to wait several months to
get a minor software update.
I created the KXStudio repositories to help this, and I'm making them
Debian compatible so that it works as widely as possible.
I used to have to build stuff manually every-time I wanted a small
package update.
Sometimes the build completed ok but the app didn't run (segfault at
start), what then?
I'd be tempted to remove what I just installed, but not all software
comes with a "make uninstall".
So crap... I had broken app X and I didn't knew how to fix it or to
revert to the previous condition...
I seriously don't want new users to have to go through that!
>>> Releasing software on windows or mac, even open-source, *always*
>>> comes in a binary, and most users come from there.
>> And why do they want to change ? To get 'free as in beer' software ?
>> Then they should accept that this comes at a price: a small effort
>> from their side.
>>
>>> Now, I have a "toolchain" repository for ubuntu 10.04 with gcc4.8,
>>> python3+qt4 and a bunch of other useful stuff.
>> Unless that toolchain can magically create packages for all major
>> distros (and I'm pretty sure it can't do that), what's the point ?
> I found that part amusing. Does the OP really claim a toolchain that
> can create binaries tha run native on 32bit inteloids as well as on
> 64 bit AMD/Intel. Will his binary run on my PPC (Mac Mini, great tool
> to run Aeolus). Not even speaking of the plentitude of (binary-incompatible)
> ARM processors. And do theses binaries magically create MMX/SSE/SSE2 instructions
> on thoses CPUs that don't have them? Or are we blessed with binaries with
> all optimizations dissabled?
I don't claim to have any magic thing here.
I've just been setting up a toolchain + some static libs to make sure my
Debian packages work for as much users as possible.
It's 32bit and 64bit only. And SSE optimization is enabled for all
builds (where I believe is safe to do so).
This might make the binaries useless for some, but it's a starting point.
Why not try them?
See for yourself at http://kxstudio.sourceforge.net/Downloads#Binaries.
I use Python3-Qt4 for the UIs in my apps, yet the binaries still work
fine for someone without python3 (like Debian 6, as used by AVLinux).
(They are packaged into a self-extracting archive, but that's a
different topic. I just personally prefer all-in-one bundled app vs a
bunch of files that need a specific script to start up).
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@email-addr-hidden
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Received on Tue Jan 21 20:15:03 2014
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Jan 21 2014 - 20:15:03 EET