Re: [Audacity-devel] Recent patches
A free multi-track audio editor and recorder
Brought to you by:
aosiniao
From: Brian C. <Brian.Cameron@Sun.COM> - 2008-03-18 06:55:09
|
Richard: I think this is a great idea. Really it is better to simply use the library installed on the system, if it exists - rather than audacity trying to build its own versions of everything. Duplicating the code makes more work for the distros, who have to patch the same code twice. Really, I'd prefer if audacity used the system PortAudio rather than including its own version. Might be nice to also move other stuff out of src-libs and just require distros to build the appropriate libraries as needed. Brian > On Mon, 2008-03-17 at 21:56 +0000, James Crook wrote: >> I don't know how long before we'll update from upstream again, because >> each time involves risk. I'd see you as being in charge of >> 'Audacity-solaris' and taking care of your patches, so it's your call as >> to whether to (a) update CVS with your patches and (b) what to push >> upstream. What does matter is that any changes are neutral (or possibly >> improvements) for other builds. >> >>> I notice that soundtouch is no longer bundled with the latest version >>> of audacity. Does this mean that it isn't needed any longer? Or simply >>> that you need to install it separately on the system for it to be used? >> Federico has raised that too, with regard change pitch and change speed >> effects. I don't know the answer. Hopefully someone on the list who >> knows about it will fill us in. > It was me who patched scripts/maketarball.sh to not include soundtouch > in the tarball. My reasoning was that we didn't have any patches in > soundtouch (and hadn't had since soundtouch 1.3.1 was released). It was > therefore a stock upstream copy. > > The main reason I didn't like distributing this was that it used to > cause compile errors on various distributions, which then came back to > us as problems compiling audacity. As a result my preference has always > been for installing soundtouch as a system library on Linux systems, > then linking against that rather than static link a copy from within > audacity's source tarball (it also saves 308k on the download). > > We already don't put libogg / libvorbis / libflac in the source tarball > for the same reasons, and this hasn't been a problem in the past. > > Richard > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft > Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008. > http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/ > _______________________________________________ > Audacity-devel mailing list > Aud...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-devel |