Re: [Audacity-devel] Tarballs
A free multi-track audio editor and recorder
Brought to you by:
aosiniao
From: Vaughan J. <va...@au...> - 2013-01-20 01:53:34
|
On 1/19/2013 4:19 AM, Gale Andrews wrote: > > | From Vaughan Johnson <va...@au...> > | Fri, 18 Jan 2013 19:07:05 -0800 >> On 1/18/2013 3:57 PM, Benjamin Drung wrote: >>> Am Mittwoch, den 16.01.2013, 20:21 -0800 schrieb Vaughan Johnson: >>>> On 1/16/2013 12:42 PM, Steve the Fiddle wrote: >>>>> On 16 January 2013 19:50, Gale Andrews <ga...@au...> wrote: >>>>>> | From Steve the Fiddle <ste...@gm...> >>>>>>> [...] >>>>>>> Do we really need the full source tarball? As I understand it, it is >>>>>>> better for Linux users to use system libraries when possible. For >>>>>>> Windows developers I'd have thought they world be better to use SVN >>>>>>> than a tarball. >>>> >>>> I defer to Linux experts. >>> >>> I guess that the minsrc tarball is sufficient for most Linux users. We >>> always use the minsrc tarball in Debian/Ubuntu and nyquist is the only >>> library that we need from the lib-src directory. From a Linux user >>> perspective, the full source tarball could go away. >>> >>> I think it makes sense to keep the full source tarball and use it for >>> the Windows (and Mac?) builds. Then you can point user of your built >>> binaries to the corresponding source tarballs. This is in my opinion >>> easier than to point to a specific revision of an svn checkout. >>> >> >> Okay, thanks, but I don't think we have resources to do full tarball >> this release, as was pretty extensively discussed. >> >> If I'm incorrect about that, sure, let's do it. We're certainly >> resource-limited, so I think we should not spend a lot of effort on >> icing the cake. > > The maketarball.sh script uses: > > ./configure --enable-maintainer-mode --with-libsndfile=local --with-lib-preference=\"local system\" > > As I understand it, if you try to build all the libs needed for the > fullsrc using that ./configure, you end up with a failed configure > "fails with unexpected EOF's at line 8525 and 8526" or similar > (I can confirm that). > Thanks. So is that a -1 for full tarball for 2.0.3? Or +1 that we need to fix this and include it in 2.0.3? - V |