Re: [linux-audio-user] terrible sineshaper dependencies

On Sun, 2005-11-06 at 12:33 +1100, Dave Robillard wrote:
> On Sat, 2005-05-11 at 22:48 +0000, Nigel Henry wrote:
> > Hi. Has anyone got sineshaper installed on FC3? I'm having the most terrible
> > dependency problems. gtkmm, then glibmm, and the list of deps goes on and on.
> > I thought that Fedora extras handled thes deps, but adding the urls to yum
> > for the fedora extras hasn't solved it. Yum says gtkmm doesn't exist. I'm not
> > knocking anything. I'd just like to get sineshaper working, as it sounds like
> > a good synth. Any tips, hints. Nigel.
>
> Fedora is the thing that's terrible, not Sineshaper.
>
> I've had people with these problems numerous times with Om as well
> (which also depends on Gtkmm), exclusively with Fedora. I can't
> possibly understand how Fedora doesn't have the very widely used
> official C++ bindings to GTK. How many packages do they have? 12?

Fedora Core 3: 1653
Fedora extras 3: 1703
(unofficial count :-)

Fedora Core + Extras has the required software, but the versions
available on fc3 are not new enough for sineshaper (2.4.x vs. 2.6.x).
Fc4 has newer versions, but I have not yet tried to build sineshaper or
om on it. I presume they will build if the right packages are
installed.

> Try switching to a distribution that actually ..distributes..
> things people need.

Or a newer version of Fedora Core.

I've had this problem many times over the years while building packages
for Planet CCRMA. Some programs require the latest version of core
libraries, and those requirements are sometimes not fullfilled on old
versions of distributions (my experience is with Redhat/Fedora Core).
Some programs don't use the latest APIs and build everywhere. It is up
to the developer to choose, some prefer the latest and greatest (and
their packages will not build on older distros), some are more
conservative in their choices and their packages build on older versions
of a given distro.

-- Fernando
Received on Sun Nov 6 08:15:05 2005