7/26/2001 23:30:38, Paul Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>Why don't I make my libraries available as RPMs or debian packages?
>Because I have better things to do with my development time than
>rebuilding, reuploading, re-doing a web page every time I fix a bug in
>a library. Thats why Ardour is currently a developer only system, and
>its why I use CVS, because I assume that developers will be happy
>using CVS because of the ease and low cost of updating it provides.
>
Ya, I hear you there. I totally understand. I still want to try ardour, but I have
better things to do than hunt down/install all the libs required.
Like keep my OWN applications up to date.
>the "requirements" page already did this, and i just updated it to
>include a couple of new links and to revise the old ones.
>
> http://ardour.sourceforge.net/requirements.html
>
>>or even better, links to any binaries that the dist's. might have available.
>
>its proven *extremely* problematic to use binaries of C++
>libraries. C++ is much more susceptible than C to compile-time
>conditions. in addition, the "dists" have become increasingly
>incompatible due to compiler/library issues, and furthermore, they
>include code changes that are not in the original source ball, making
>it more difficult for me to track bug reports accurately.
Tell me about it. It seems if a developer DOES want to provide binaries, you have to
have several of the different dist's on your own system. Even different
versions of the dists, and compile a binary for each of the distributions.That's one
thing I don't like about many of them- they install libraries in different
places other than the maintainers tar balls. I have gotten to the point where if/when
I install a dist, I forget about installing anything X, or dev from them, and
just install from tarballs.
I guess thats a unix tradition, having several different incompatible distributions
available. I was hoping linux could overcome this, but it isn't happening.
ljp
