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. > > [GNU/] Linux is getting more user friendly, > > Depends very much on what you understand by 'user friendly'. Again, I think "Linux" stands for "some distributions". > > and most users are not able to compile software, > > They can learn to do it. It's not rocket science. And even if they can't: use your distribution's package or file a request for packaging. There might even be valid reasons for why a package is not availabe in the newest version. > > plus some distributions make it specially hard (debian, ubuntu, > > fedora, opensuse) by having the libs installed but not the headers. > > They all provide 'devel' packages as well. Why they split things > up is another question, IMHO it's a silly thing to do. Usually > the space taken by the headers is small fraction of the total. Space is _not_ the reason for these splits. On Unix it's perfectly ok to have several versions of a library installed in parallel. But it's not possible to install several versions of the header files in parallel. Thats a result of the way C handles includes. > > 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? Such a toolchain is either fantastic or ridiculous. N.B.: I love the idea of "More binaries for small and obscure software, ..." Yeah - obscure software (from obscure websites?), as a binary blob. Just double-click to install (and, pleeeease, run it a root :-) I'm getting old :-/ Cheers, RalfD > Ciao, > > -- > FA > > A world of exhaustive, reliable metadata would be an utopia. > It's also a pipe-dream, founded on self-delusion, nerd hubris > and hysterically inflated market opportunities. (Cory Doctorow) > > _______________________________________________ > Linux-audio-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev -- R. Mattes - Hochschule fuer Musik Freiburg [email protected] _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
