Re: [flac-dev] Do we need a pre-release?

[Erik de Castro Lopo]

Robert Kausch wrote:

> Yes, the missing Makefiles solve most of the issues. The patch can be 
> reduced to the attached version.

Applied. Thanks.
 
> I'm not sure about the other files you listed. I guess they should 
> either be added to the tarball or removed from git.

I'll make sure the Makefile.lite build system works from the tarball.

Erik
-- 
--
Erik de Castro Lopo
http://www.mega-nerd.com/
___
flac-dev mailing list
flac-dev@xiph.org
http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/flac-dev

Re: [flac-dev] Do we need a pre-release?

[Erik de Castro Lopo]

lvqcl.mail wrote:

> The patch is attached.

Applied. Thanks.

Erik
-- 
--
Erik de Castro Lopo
http://www.mega-nerd.com/
___
flac-dev mailing list
flac-dev@xiph.org
http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/flac-dev

Re: [flac-dev] Do we need a pre-release?

[Robert Kausch]

Am 11.12.2016 um 00:05 schrieb lvqcl.mail:

Robert Kausch wrote:


The main issues were inclusion of non-existing Makefile.deps


It does exist in git, but not in flac-1.3.2pre1.tar.xz.

(Here's the list of all files that exist in git but not in
the pre-release tarball:

.gitignore
Makefile.deps
ci\flac-autotool.sh
doc\isoflac.txt
Scripts\cross-build-win-binaries.mk
src\libFLAC\ia32\lpc_asm-unrolled.nasm
src\share\win_utf8_io\Makefile.lite
src\test_libFLAC\matrix
src\utils\flactimer\Makefile.lite
src\utils\loudness\loudness.sci
)



and wrong build order (i.e. trying to build flac
before libFLAC and other dependencies).


Probably Makefile.deps should solve this problem?
Imho it's better to add missing Makefile.deps and
two Makefile.lite files into release tarballs.
Yes, the missing Makefiles solve most of the issues. The patch can be 
reduced to the attached version.


I'm not sure about the other files you listed. I guess they should 
either be added to the tarball or removed from git.



Robert Kausch
robert.kau...@freac.org

diff -Naur flac-1.3.2pre1/build/lib.mk flac-1.3.2pre1+litefix/build/lib.mk
--- flac-1.3.2pre1/build/lib.mk	2016-12-06 09:05:46 +
+++ flac-1.3.2pre1+litefix/build/lib.mk	2016-12-11 00:32:22 +
@@ -66,7 +66,7 @@
 LINKD   = $(CC) -shared
 endif
 
-BASE_CFLAGS = -Wall -Wextra $(CONFIG_CFLAGS) -DVERSION=$(VERSION) $(DEFINES) $(INCLUDES)
+BASE_CFLAGS = -Wall -Wextra $(CONFIG_CFLAGS) -DVERSION=$(VERSION) -DPACKAGE_VERSION=$(VERSION) $(DEFINES) $(INCLUDES)
 
 ifeq ($(DEFAULT_BUILD),debug)
 CFLAGS   := -g -O0 -DDEBUG $(CFLAGS) $(BASE_CFLAGS) -Wmissing-prototypes -Wstrict-prototypes
diff -Naur flac-1.3.2pre1/src/test_streams/Makefile.lite flac-1.3.2pre1+litefix/src/test_streams/Makefile.lite
--- flac-1.3.2pre1/src/test_streams/Makefile.lite	2016-12-06 09:05:46 +
+++ flac-1.3.2pre1+litefix/src/test_streams/Makefile.lite	2016-12-11 00:32:22 +
@@ -30,9 +30,9 @@
 INCLUDES = -I./include -I$(topdir)/include
 
 ifeq ($(OS),Darwin)
-EXPLICIT_LIBS = $(libdir)/libgrabbag.a -lm
+EXPLICIT_LIBS = $(libdir)/libgrabbag.a $(libdir)/libreplaygain_analysis.a -lm
 else
-LIBS = -lgrabbag -lm
+LIBS = -lgrabbag -lreplaygain_analysis -lm
 endif
 
 SRCS_C = \
___
flac-dev mailing list
flac-dev@xiph.org
http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/flac-dev

Re: [flac-dev] Do we need a pre-release?

[lvqcl.mail]

Robert Kausch wrote:


The main issues were inclusion of non-existing Makefile.deps


It does exist in git, but not in flac-1.3.2pre1.tar.xz.

(Here's the list of all files that exist in git but not in
the pre-release tarball:

.gitignore
Makefile.deps
ci\flac-autotool.sh
doc\isoflac.txt
Scripts\cross-build-win-binaries.mk
src\libFLAC\ia32\lpc_asm-unrolled.nasm
src\share\win_utf8_io\Makefile.lite
src\test_libFLAC\matrix
src\utils\flactimer\Makefile.lite
src\utils\loudness\loudness.sci
)



and wrong build order (i.e. trying to build flac
before libFLAC and other dependencies).


Probably Makefile.deps should solve this problem?
Imho it's better to add missing Makefile.deps and
two Makefile.lite files into release tarballs.
___
flac-dev mailing list
flac-dev@xiph.org
http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/flac-dev

Re: [flac-dev] Do we need a pre-release?

[Robert Kausch]

Am 08.12.2016 um 20:44 schrieb Brian Willoughby:

On Dec 8, 2016, at 12:59 AM, Dave Yeo  wrote:

On 12/08/16 12:24 AM, Thomas Zander wrote:

On 7 December 2016 at 21:08, Erik de Castro Lopo  wrote:

lvqcl.mail wrote:


"make -f Makefile.lite" also doesn't work out of box.

Didn't work for the 1.3.1 release either. Makes me wonder why we even
keep it around.

Because it works on many systems with only tiny tweaks (e.g. passing
an env var) without the mess that is GNU autotools.
I use it frequently and always thought of it of an fine asset to have
(which other projects lack).
Would be nice to keep it IMHO.

I agree. Here it would require a lot of tweaking but it is still a good 
beginning point for someone who needs a plain makefile.
Even if slightly broken, it should be kept as a template.
Dave

Maybe add a README.lite in that directory, or a section in an existing README, 
to explain the purpose of Makefile.lite and the fact that it may not work 
exactly as provided? I'm not building for any of the systems that would use it, 
so this is just my comment from the peanut gallery.

Brian Willoughby
Here is a patch for the Makefile.lite build system that should make it 
work again on most systems. Tested on Windows (MSYS) and Ubuntu 12.10. 
The main issues were inclusion of non-existing Makefile.deps, missing 
PACKAGE_VERSION define and wrong build order (i.e. trying to build flac 
before libFLAC and other dependencies).



Robert Kausch
robert.kau...@freac.org

diff -Naur flac-1.3.2pre1/Makefile.lite flac-1.3.2pre1+litefix/Makefile.lite
--- flac-1.3.2pre1/Makefile.lite	2016-12-06 09:05:46 +
+++ flac-1.3.2pre1+litefix/Makefile.lite	2016-12-10 16:21:24 +
@@ -74,4 +74,3 @@
 	-(cd test && $(MAKE) -f Makefile.lite clean)
 
 examples: libFLAC libFLAC++ share
-include $(topdir)/Makefile.deps
diff -Naur flac-1.3.2pre1/build/lib.mk flac-1.3.2pre1+litefix/build/lib.mk
--- flac-1.3.2pre1/build/lib.mk	2016-12-06 09:05:46 +
+++ flac-1.3.2pre1+litefix/build/lib.mk	2016-12-10 16:10:41 +
@@ -66,7 +66,7 @@
 LINKD   = $(CC) -shared
 endif
 
-BASE_CFLAGS = -Wall -Wextra $(CONFIG_CFLAGS) -DVERSION=$(VERSION) $(DEFINES) $(INCLUDES)
+BASE_CFLAGS = -Wall -Wextra $(CONFIG_CFLAGS) -DVERSION=$(VERSION) -DPACKAGE_VERSION=$(VERSION) $(DEFINES) $(INCLUDES)
 
 ifeq ($(DEFAULT_BUILD),debug)
 CFLAGS   := -g -O0 -DDEBUG $(CFLAGS) $(BASE_CFLAGS) -Wmissing-prototypes -Wstrict-prototypes
diff -Naur flac-1.3.2pre1/src/Makefile.lite flac-1.3.2pre1+litefix/src/Makefile.lite
--- flac-1.3.2pre1/src/Makefile.lite	2016-12-06 09:05:46 +
+++ flac-1.3.2pre1+litefix/src/Makefile.lite	2016-12-10 16:29:26 +
@@ -36,7 +36,7 @@
 endif
 
 .PHONY: all flac libFLAC libFLAC++ metaflac plugin_common plugin_xmms share/win_utf8_io share test_grabbag test_libs_common test_libFLAC test_libFLAC++ test_seeking test_streams flacdiff flactimer
-all: flac libFLAC libFLAC++ metaflac plugin_common $(EXTRA_TARGETS) share test_grabbag test_libs_common test_libFLAC test_libFLAC++ test_seeking test_streams
+all: libFLAC libFLAC++ share $(EXTRA_TARGETS) flac metaflac plugin_common test_grabbag test_libs_common test_libFLAC test_libFLAC++ test_seeking test_streams
 
 DEFAULT_CONFIG = release
 
@@ -72,5 +72,3 @@
 	-(cd test_streams ; $(MAKE) -f Makefile.lite clean)
 	-(cd utils/flacdiff ; $(MAKE) -f Makefile.lite clean)
 	-(cd utils/flactimer ; $(MAKE) -f Makefile.lite clean)
-
-include $(topdir)/Makefile.deps
diff -Naur flac-1.3.2pre1/src/share/win_utf8_io/Makefile.lite flac-1.3.2pre1+litefix/src/share/win_utf8_io/Makefile.lite
--- flac-1.3.2pre1/src/share/win_utf8_io/Makefile.lite	1970-01-01 00:00:00 +
+++ flac-1.3.2pre1+litefix/src/share/win_utf8_io/Makefile.lite	2016-12-10 16:16:18 +
@@ -0,0 +1,23 @@
+#
+# GNU makefile
+#
+
+topdir = ../../..
+libdir = $(topdir)/objs/$(BUILD)/lib
+
+LIB_NAME = libwin_utf8_io
+
+ifeq ($(OS),Darwin)
+EXPLICIT_LIBS = $(libdir)/libFLAC.a
+else
+LIBS = -lFLAC
+endif
+
+INCLUDES = -I$(topdir)/include
+
+SRCS_C = \
+	win_utf8_io.c
+
+include $(topdir)/build/lib.mk
+
+# DO NOT DELETE THIS LINE -- make depend depends on it.
diff -Naur flac-1.3.2pre1/src/test_streams/Makefile.lite flac-1.3.2pre1+litefix/src/test_streams/Makefile.lite
--- flac-1.3.2pre1/src/test_streams/Makefile.lite	2016-12-06 09:05:46 +
+++ flac-1.3.2pre1+litefix/src/test_streams/Makefile.lite	2016-12-10 17:15:41 +
@@ -30,9 +30,9 @@
 INCLUDES = -I./include -I$(topdir)/include
 
 ifeq ($(OS),Darwin)
-EXPLICIT_LIBS = $(libdir)/libgrabbag.a -lm
+EXPLICIT_LIBS = $(libdir)/libgrabbag.a $(libdir)/libreplaygain_analysis.a -lm
 else
-LIBS = -lgrabbag -lm
+LIBS = -lgrabbag -lreplaygain_analysis -lm
 endif
 
 SRCS_C = \
___
flac-dev mailing list
flac-dev@xiph.org
http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/flac-dev

Re: [flac-dev] Do we need a pre-release?

[Brian Willoughby]

On Dec 8, 2016, at 12:59 AM, Dave Yeo  wrote:
> On 12/08/16 12:24 AM, Thomas Zander wrote:
>> On 7 December 2016 at 21:08, Erik de Castro Lopo  
>> wrote:
>>> lvqcl.mail wrote:
>>> 
 "make -f Makefile.lite" also doesn't work out of box.
>>> 
>>> Didn't work for the 1.3.1 release either. Makes me wonder why we even
>>> keep it around.
>> 
>> Because it works on many systems with only tiny tweaks (e.g. passing
>> an env var) without the mess that is GNU autotools.
>> I use it frequently and always thought of it of an fine asset to have
>> (which other projects lack).
>> Would be nice to keep it IMHO.
> 
> I agree. Here it would require a lot of tweaking but it is still a good 
> beginning point for someone who needs a plain makefile.
> Even if slightly broken, it should be kept as a template.
> Dave

Maybe add a README.lite in that directory, or a section in an existing README, 
to explain the purpose of Makefile.lite and the fact that it may not work 
exactly as provided? I'm not building for any of the systems that would use it, 
so this is just my comment from the peanut gallery.

Brian Willoughby

___
flac-dev mailing list
flac-dev@xiph.org
http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/flac-dev

Re: [flac-dev] Do we need a pre-release?

[Dave Yeo]

On 12/08/16 12:24 AM, Thomas Zander wrote:

On 7 December 2016 at 21:08, Erik de Castro Lopo  wrote:

lvqcl.mail wrote:


"make -f Makefile.lite" also doesn't work out of box.


Didn't work for the 1.3.1 release either. Makes me wonder why we even
keep it around.


Because it works on many systems with only tiny tweaks (e.g. passing
an env var) without the mess that is GNU autotools.
I use it frequently and always thought of it of an fine asset to have
(which other projects lack).
Would be nice to keep it IMHO.



I agree. Here it would require a lot of tweaking but it is still a good 
beginning point for someone who needs a plain makefile.

Even if slightly broken, it should be kept as a template.
Dave
___
flac-dev mailing list
flac-dev@xiph.org
http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/flac-dev

Re: [flac-dev] Do we need a pre-release?

[Thomas Zander]

On 7 December 2016 at 21:08, Erik de Castro Lopo  wrote:
> lvqcl.mail wrote:
>
>> "make -f Makefile.lite" also doesn't work out of box.
>
> Didn't work for the 1.3.1 release either. Makes me wonder why we even
> keep it around.

Because it works on many systems with only tiny tweaks (e.g. passing
an env var) without the mess that is GNU autotools.
I use it frequently and always thought of it of an fine asset to have
(which other projects lack).
Would be nice to keep it IMHO.

Best regards
Riggs
___
flac-dev mailing list
flac-dev@xiph.org
http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/flac-dev

Re: [flac-dev] Do we need a pre-release?

[Dave Yeo]

On 12/06/16 11:46 PM, Erik de Castro Lopo wrote:

Erik de Castro Lopo wrote:


Unfortunately I've lost/forgotten my Xiph SVN password. While I get
that sorted out for the real release, the pre-releases are here:

 http://mega-nerd.com/tmp/flac-1.3.2pre1-win.zip
 http://mega-nerd.com/tmp/flac-1.3.2pre1.tar.xz


Forgot to mention that I have tested this on x86_64/linux, armhf/linux
and powerpc/linux.



Builds fine on OS/2 and the only test failures are due to dd failures, eg
...
Generating multiple input files from noise...
ERROR: creating files with dd
...
Dave
___
flac-dev mailing list
flac-dev@xiph.org
http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/flac-dev

Re: [flac-dev] Do we need a pre-release?

[Erik de Castro Lopo]

lvqcl.mail wrote:

> "make -f Makefile.lite" also doesn't work out of box.

Didn't work for the 1.3.1 release either. Makes me wonder why we even
keep it around.

Erik
-- 
--
Erik de Castro Lopo
http://www.mega-nerd.com/
___
flac-dev mailing list
flac-dev@xiph.org
http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/flac-dev

Re: [flac-dev] Do we need a pre-release?

[Erik de Castro Lopo]

lvqcl.mail wrote:

> Microsoft Visual Studio 2015:
> format.c(48): error C2065: 'PACKAGE_VERSION': undeclared identifier
> 
> I edited MSVC project files (I changed 'VERSION' preprocessor variable
> to 'PACKAGE_VERSION') and it resulted in successful build:
> "Rebuild All: 26 succeeded, 0 failed, 0 skipped"

Can I ask you to provide a patch updating all the MSVS files to use
`PACKAGE_VERSION` instead of `PACKAGE`?

> "make -f Makefile.lite" also doesn't work out of box.

I'll take a look.

> And BTW, github.com/xiph/flac repository is outdated: its last
> commit is "Correct additional 'MEATADATA' typos."

Yeah, I've notified Xiph people of that.

Erik
-- 
--
Erik de Castro Lopo
http://www.mega-nerd.com/
___
flac-dev mailing list
flac-dev@xiph.org
http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/flac-dev

Re: [flac-dev] Do we need a pre-release?

[Erik de Castro Lopo]

Erik de Castro Lopo wrote:

> Unfortunately I've lost/forgotten my Xiph SVN password. While I get
> that sorted out for the real release, the pre-releases are here:
> 
> http://mega-nerd.com/tmp/flac-1.3.2pre1-win.zip
> http://mega-nerd.com/tmp/flac-1.3.2pre1.tar.xz

Forgot to mention that I have tested this on x86_64/linux, armhf/linux
and powerpc/linux.

Erik
-- 
--
Erik de Castro Lopo
http://www.mega-nerd.com/
___
flac-dev mailing list
flac-dev@xiph.org
http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/flac-dev

Re: [flac-dev] Do we need a pre-release?

[Erik de Castro Lopo]

Erik de Castro Lopo wrote:

> > I'd say let's have a release candidate. More often than not, some
> > issues turn up due to the exposure to a larger user base and, hence,
> > test cases.
> 
> Ok, coming up.

Unfortunately I've lost/forgotten my Xiph SVN password. While I get
that sorted out for the real release, the pre-releases are here:

http://mega-nerd.com/tmp/flac-1.3.2pre1-win.zip
http://mega-nerd.com/tmp/flac-1.3.2pre1.tar.xz

Md5sums are:

3ba068ddba9b2e4fc7c140781a6c396b  flac-1.3.2pre1.tar.xz
d9811e11af9b4ff411a7b2e834b32c6c  flac-1.3.2pre1-win.zip

Sha256sums are:

f110314e3425611ef6350a1617c889527d16f81fccb08ef179dd4717c0eadb9c  
flac-1.3.2pre1.tar.xz
313088212c3f1b1277b58e95c9b473d981af20c082ab229596a9258129cd64a3  
flac-1.3.2pre1-win.zip

This code is built from commit 368491055f8b5590893dea454f88008e551f0c03
plus another commmit to change the version number which I will
not be pushing to the public repo before the final release.

Note that these files encoeded with these pre-releases will be
4 bytes longer than the the file encoded with the 1.3.2 final
release because the version string is "1.3.2pre1" instead of
"1.3.2".

Cheers,
Erik
-- 
--
Erik de Castro Lopo
http://www.mega-nerd.com/
___
flac-dev mailing list
flac-dev@xiph.org
http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/flac-dev

Re: [flac-dev] Do we need a pre-release?

[Erik de Castro Lopo]

Thomas Zander wrote:

> I'd say let's have a release candidate. More often than not, some
> issues turn up due to the exposure to a larger user base and, hence,
> test cases.

Ok, coming up.

Erik
-- 
--
Erik de Castro Lopo
http://www.mega-nerd.com/
___
flac-dev mailing list
flac-dev@xiph.org
http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/flac-dev

Re: [flac-dev] Do we need a pre-release?

[Thomas Zander]

On 6 December 2016 at 10:12, Erik de Castro Lopo  wrote:
>
> Subject line says it all. Opinions?

I'd say let's have a release candidate. More often than not, some
issues turn up due to the exposure to a larger user base and, hence,
test cases.

Best regards
Riggs
___
flac-dev mailing list
flac-dev@xiph.org
http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/flac-dev

[flac-dev] Do we need a pre-release?

[Erik de Castro Lopo]

Subject line says it all. Opinions?

Erik
-- 
--
Erik de Castro Lopo
http://www.mega-nerd.com/
___
flac-dev mailing list
flac-dev@xiph.org
http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/flac-dev