I think that means that I would have to switch from my bare source release style to releasing an autotools-source-release. And then anyhow throwing the autotools-source-release into the compiled releases.
cheers M On Sun, Dec 03, 2017 at 12:15:37AM +0100, Dan Wilcox wrote: > Despite popular opinion, an auto tools source release has already created the > configure script so users do *not* need to run the autotools themselves, just > ./configure && make. > > One difference is that the mac and windows releases rely on a slightly > different folder structure than that of the expected auto tools install (ie. > Unix-style layout). In this case, one option is to leave everything in a > source directory as suggested and then have a separate installer script which > puts things into the right place. IMO it's easier to let configure/make do > their jobs and extra stuff like this is better handled by installing into a > temp directory and/or using a script to put things "in the right place". > > It's totally possible and probably the next step after the Windows build is > ironed out. (We are working on it: > https://github.com/pure-data/pure-data/issues/25#issuecomment-348724495 > <https://github.com/pure-data/pure-data/issues/25#issuecomment-348724495>) > > > On Dec 3, 2017, at 12:08 AM, Miller Puckette <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > You'd no longer just be able to change > > something and hit 'make' - instead you'd have to download the whole > > autotools > > horrorshow and do it the "official" way. > > -------- > Dan Wilcox > @danomatika <http://twitter.com/danomatika> > danomatika.com <http://danomatika.com/> > robotcowboy.com <http://robotcowboy.com/> > > > _______________________________________________ Pd-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev
