[Audacity-devel] Makefile for nyg-bench in the tarball??

[James C. <cr...@in...>]

This started out on 'quality' but now belongs on devel.

Should we include makefiles for nyq-bench (a useful plug in but not yet 
ready for release in Audacity installers on windows) on linux along with 
the source?

My answer is yes, but we should do it in such a way that a building 
using the makefile is off by default, not automatically picked up and used.

It's an RM decides matter, not me, but people can chip in on this thread 
to state technical options (that they favour).


----

[The prefs options for modules only take effect on next restarting 
Audacity.]

--James.

On 16/07/2012 22:51, Gale Andrews wrote:
> | From Steve the Fiddle <ste...@gm...>
> | Mon, 16 Jul 2012 22:17:05 +0100
> | Subject: [Audacity-manual] R11838 Preferences & the new Modules page
>> On 16 July 2012 21:46, Gale Andrews <ga...@au...> wrote:
>>> | From Steve the Fiddle <ste...@gm...>
>>> | Mon, 16 Jul 2012 01:17:38 +0100
>>> | Subject: [Audacity-manual] R11838 Preferences & the new Modules page
>>>> On 16 July 2012 00:02, Gale Andrews <ga...@au...> wrote:
>>>>> | From Steve the Fiddle <ste...@gm...>
>>>>> | Sun, 15 Jul 2012 23:24:51 +0100
>>>>> | Subject: [Audacity-manual] R11838 Preferences & the new Modules page
>>>>>> On 15 July 2012 21:50, Gale Andrews <ga...@au...> wrote:
>>>>>>> | From James Crook <cr...@in...>
>>>>>>> | Sun, 15 Jul 2012 11:30:32 +0100
>>>>>>> | Subject: [Audacity-manual] R11838 Preferences & the new Modules page
>>>>>>>>> Are we going to distribute mod-nyq-bench?
>>>>>>>>>> Not in the standard package for 2.0.2.
>>>>>>>>>> Probably not at all, except in source form from SVN, as we're not ready to.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I think Steve has been arguing for that, and I believe the feature is reasonably finished
>>>>>>>>>>> with only a couple of bugs.
>>>>>> I was arguing for mod-nyq-bench to be available in the source tarball
>>>>>> rather than only in SVN so as to encourage experimentation and greater
>>>>>> usage of Nyquist by users that build Audacity themselves. While it is
>>>>>> not included in the source tarball, many users will be totally unaware
>>>>>> of its existence.
>>>>> I think the most advanced users will build from HEAD, anyway, but for
>>>>> clarity, what do you want included in the tarballs that is not included
>>>>> now? I see lib-src\mod-nyq-bench in both 2.0.1 tarballs.
>>>> I'd like the makefile to be included. The instructions in the
>>>> Readme.txt file don't work without that.
>>> Looking at the three modules, only mod-nyq-bench and mod-script-pipe
>>> have a makefile. The makefile is not in the tarballs for either of those
>>> two.
>>>
>>> So either it's a mistake, or it's felt that including makefiles in the tarball
>>> would be like "distributing" it. I see nothing in scripts/maketarball.sh
>>> that says exclusion is deliberate. Have you asked on -devel?
>> Yes, back in March
>> http://audacity.238276.n2.nabble.com/lib-src-mod-nyq-bench-Makefile-tt7352579.html
> I guess then that including the makefile in the tarball would be seen
> as "shipping" it for Linux, despite we provide the wherewithal  in the
> tarball to compile it for Windows.
>
> I'm inclined to lobby for fixing the Workbench bugs and distributing it
> rather than lobby for including the makefile in the tarball. The Modules
> Prefs should give Workbench sufficient extra publicity.
>
>
>> Do the new modules preferences do anything on Windows? They don't seem
>> to do anything on Linux.
> I only tried the mod-nyq-bench, but on Windows, Workbench appears
> in the View Menu whether that modules preference is enabled or not.
> I've already asked James about that off-list.
>
>
>
>
> Gale
>
>
>>>>>>>>>> We'll get a sprinkling of people who compile it from source.    The
>>>>>>>>>> early adopters.  That's enough for the moment.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Only a couple of bugs is not good enough.  We want plug-ins to be P3
>>>>>>>>>> free before they can be distributed with Audacity.  We don't want to
>>>>>>>>>> make the mistake of a bug snowdrift again.
>>>>>>>>> The known bugs are considered P4:
>>>>>>>>> http://bugzilla.audacityteam.org/buglist.cgi?quicksearch=workbench
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It would be a judgement call if they would be P3 in something that was
>>>>>>>>> distributed, possibly yes, but that would encourage fixing.
>>>>>>>> P4 going to P3 on its own wouldn't encourage fixing enough.  We need the
>>>>>>>> additional rule that we don't distribute a plug-in that has P3 bugs
>>>>>>>> actually with Audacity.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Knowing your carefully crafted plug-in isn't going to see much daylight
>>>>>>>> unless you get it P3 free is a huge incentive.  Just opinions, but
>>>>>>>> that's how I want to do the plug-ins.
>>>>>>> That's fair enough...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>   I'd love to see nyq-bench being distributed P3 free with 2.0.3.
>>>>>>> ...however Leland is not really active in the project at the moment.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Gale
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Live Security Virtual Conference
> Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and
> threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions
> will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware
> threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/
> _______________________________________________
> Audacity-manual mailing list
> Aud...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/audacity-manual
>
>