[LAD] Releasing source code is not enough, I think...

[Filipe Coelho]

Hi there everyone, specially developers.

I think we should stop assuming releasing source code is enough.
[GNU/] Linux is getting more user friendly, and most users are not able 
to compile software,
plus some distributions make it specially hard (debian, ubuntu, fedora, 
opensuse) by having the libs installed but not the headers.


Releasing software on windows or mac, even open-source, *always* comes 
in a binary,

and most users come from there.


Now, I have a "toolchain" repository for ubuntu 10.04 with gcc4.8, 
python3+qt4 and a bunch of other useful stuff.
I use this to get generic linux binaries that (from what I know) work 
everywhere.
I can make a developer-oriented tutorial on how to use that, so that 
developers can provide linux binaries to its users.


Would that be something useful to Linux Audio?

___
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev

Re: [LAD] Releasing source code is not enough, I think...

[Louigi Verona]

In my view, yes, absolutely!

L.V.
___
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev

Re: [LAD] Releasing source code is not enough, I think...

[Thijs van severen]

+1
Op 21-jan.-2014 07:37 schreef "Louigi Verona" :

> In my view, yes, absolutely!
>
> L.V.
>
> ___
> Linux-audio-dev mailing list
> Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
> http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
>
>
___
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev

Re: [LAD] Releasing source code is not enough, I think...

[Nils Gey]

On Tue, 21 Jan 2014 05:55:04 +
Filipe Coelho  wrote:

> Hi there everyone, specially developers.
> 
> I think we should stop assuming releasing source code is enough.
> [GNU/] Linux is getting more user friendly, and most users are not able 
> to compile software,

I agree. But where, from your standpoint, is the package manager? I found one 
the strong points of Linux is that you have your central installation place.

What I would like to see is a change of culture, more tailored to the users who 
like experimenting and trying new things out:
In Windows I like that it is customary to offer all-in-one binaries, even if 
you only release a super-early techdemo in a forum. 
For me that means: Especially for some super-early tech demos in forums. 
Instead of an undocumented github page where I have to read the code first to 
figure out the dependencies.

Bottom line:
More binaries for small and obscure software, for the time between release and 
adopting into package manager (even if that is years).
In the end I like my pacman and I always find it nice to see that the Arch 
package is there in binary form and not only an AUR script.

> I can make a developer-oriented tutorial on how to use that, so that 
> developers can provide linux binaries to its users.
> Would that be something useful to Linux Audio?

Yes, please do that. 

Nils
___
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev

Re: [LAD] Releasing source code is not enough, I think...

[karl]

Filipe Coelho:
> I think we should stop assuming releasing source code is enough.

I take the stand that releasing source code is enought.

There are lots of tools in any standard distribution to make that 
source into binaries. New users have to learn that, it is a fundamental 
part of linux-at-large and similar systems, i.e. the free-software-movement.

> [GNU/] Linux

(Note, linux proper is just the kernel, what you mean is a installed 
distribution.)

> is getting more user friendly,

No, linux-at-large is more and more getting in the way of the local 
administrator, forcing one to install more and more stuff that might 
not be wanted, with big userspace things like gnome making distruptive
changes -- that is not user friendliness.

> and most users are not able 
> to compile software,

This is where education comes in.

If people want to use ms-windows or macos-x, they take courses for that.
Why not educate yourself when you come to us ?
Why should we care for the "lazy" people ?

> plus some distributions make it specially hard (debian, ubuntu, fedora, 
> opensuse) by having the libs installed but not the headers.

If you go the distribution route, don't forget that their maintainers 
find ways to make their job easier.

So for debian you do apt-get build-dep  for a given 
package. Yes, for random sources you have to hunt down the dependancies,
but you have to do that for binaries to.

> Releasing software on windows or mac, even open-source, *always* comes 
> in a binary,
> and most users come from there.

Microsoft and Apple dictate user interfaces, if people comes to us, why
do you believe they want the same relationship ?

For the arguments sake, I say:

People coming to Microsoft have to learn the Microsoft way, ditto 
Apple. People coming to the free-software-movement has to learn it's 
ways, and one fundamental thing here is source code.

Regards,
/Karl Hammar

---
Aspö Data
Lilla Aspö 148
S-742 94 Östhammar
Sweden
+46 173 140 57


___
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev

Re: [LAD] Releasing source code is not enough, I think...

[Ralf Mardorf]

On Tue, 2014-01-21 at 09:44 +0100, k...@aspodata.se wrote:
> Filipe Coelho:
> > I think we should stop assuming releasing source code is enough.
> 
> I take the stand that releasing source code is enought.

+1

Developers are free to provide packages and they are free to include the
needed dependencies. Take a look at the file system hierarchy standard
regarding /opt. Btw. AFAIK there are two projects working at a new file
system hierarchy to make it easier to install software, what ever this
means.

Instead of using Debian and all the other named distros users are free
to install a modern distro that is more stable than those oldish distros
and anyway more up to date and especially not splitting into several
packages. Such a distro might provide an easy to understand package
management too. How about Arch Linux?

> >is getting more user friendly,
> No, linux-at-large is more and more getting in the way of the local 
> administrator, forcing one to install more and more stuff that might 
> not be wanted, with big userspace things like gnome making distruptive
> changes -- that is not user friendliness.

+1

More and more optional dependencies become hard dependencies. People
care about disc space and want split packages, so that they aren't
forced to install the headers, but it nowadays is ok to install tons of
packages that aren't needed and that not only need much disc space, but
that could serious issues, such as pulseaudio and gvfs. In the early
days pulseaudio tend to stop working audio on many machines and gvfs
still today damages "green" drives.

Very alarming is that fast 3D graphics become requirements and that
people want the same kind of "desktop" environments they use for their
smartphones and tablet PCs for the desktop too.

Sorry, a little bit OT. Some developers already build packages. Some
distros, e.g. Arch at least provide much more good multimedia software
than e.g. Debian, but even for Debian users could install third party
repositories to get rid of many issues.

Building from source does work since many years even for completely
inexperienced users.

___
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev

Re: [LAD] Releasing source code is not enough, I think...

[Zlobin Nikita]

В письме от 21 января 2014 05:55:04 пользователь Filipe Coelho написал:
> Hi there everyone, specially developers.
> 
> I think we should stop assuming releasing source code is enough.
> [GNU/] Linux is getting more user friendly, and most users are not able
> to compile software,
> plus some distributions make it specially hard (debian, ubuntu, fedora,
> opensuse) by having the libs installed but not the headers.
> 
> Releasing software on windows or mac, even open-source, *always* comes
> in a binary,
> and most users come from there.
> 
> 
> Now, I have a "toolchain" repository for ubuntu 10.04 with gcc4.8,
> python3+qt4 and a bunch of other useful stuff.
> I use this to get generic linux binaries that (from what I know) work
> everywhere.
> I can make a developer-oriented tutorial on how to use that, so that
> developers can provide linux binaries to its users.
> 
> Would that be something useful to Linux Audio?

Some steps could make it much easier to build in certain distros.
Including of deb and rpm specs into source package with mentioning in some 
readme section (building or installation), how to build for these distros, 
should make huge help for user.
___
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev

Re: [LAD] Releasing source code is not enough, I think...

[Ralf Mardorf]

On Tue, 2014-01-21 at 16:29 +0600, Zlobin Nikita wrote:
> Some steps could make it much easier to build in certain distros.
> Including of deb and rpm specs into source package with mentioning in some 
> readme section (building or installation), how to build for these distros, 
> should make huge help for user.

Often there aren't packages for much wanted software available regarding
to license policies of distros. When users want to use a computer for
multimedia productions, the users perhaps should reconsider if it's
smart to use such distros, especially when using third party
repositories could cause issues.

However, sometimes developer should think about using licenses that
don't cause issues or not to use e.g. codecs that might cause license
issues.

___
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev

Re: [LAD] Releasing source code is not enough, I think...

[Clemens Koller]

Hi, There!

When the source code is there and available (in the form of
releases and not only as a git repository) it doesn't harm
much if you release binarys optionally which might fit or
not fit some purpose.

A very important aspect should be transparency and security
for an packager of a distro. A packager also needs to make
sure that the integrity of the compiled package is given and
fits the needs of the distro.
Some users propably didn't understand what it means to
have a clean filesystem hierarchy standard.Some developers
too. That's why every once in a while a packager need to
patche to the code before it fits the distros standards.
Personally I prefer to have
a) the latest release compiled from source for work and
b) the latest git repo compiled from source to be able to give
the developer feedback about a bug and if a bug is fixed
or not in HEAD.
c) a PKGBUILD (i.e. for Arch)
d) proper documentation how to build the code, what the
default configure options are and what the dependencies are.
e) if it's not compiling, contact the developer if I really care
or dump that piece of software. There must be a better one.

I am working mostly with Arch, Crux, Debian (and Ubuntu).

Regards,

Clemens

On 01/21/2014 06:55 AM, Filipe Coelho wrote:
> Hi there everyone, specially developers.
> 
> I think we should stop assuming releasing source code is enough.
> [GNU/] Linux is getting more user friendly, and most users are not able
> to compile software,
> plus some distributions make it specially hard (debian, ubuntu, fedora,
> opensuse) by having the libs installed but not the headers.
> 
> Releasing software on windows or mac, even open-source, *always* comes
> in a binary,
> and most users come from there.
> 
> 
> Now, I have a "toolchain" repository for ubuntu 10.04 with gcc4.8,
> python3+qt4 and a bunch of other useful stuff.
> I use this to get generic linux binaries that (from what I know) work
> everywhere.
> I can make a developer-oriented tutorial on how to use that, so that
> developers can provide linux binaries to its users.
> 
> Would that be something useful to Linux Audio?
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> Linux-audio-dev mailing list
> Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
> http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
> 
___
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev

Re: [LAD] Releasing source code is not enough, I think...

[David Santamauro]

On 01/21/2014 03:44 AM, k...@aspodata.se wrote:

Filipe Coelho:

I think we should stop assuming releasing source code is enough.


I take the stand that releasing source code is enought.

There are lots of tools in any standard distribution to make that
source into binaries. New users have to learn that, it is a fundamental
part of linux-at-large and similar systems, i.e. the free-software-movement.


Is it really simply black or white? Must it be *that* way or the 
highway? The reason my main PC is a linux distribution is because of 
choice, not because I like compiling my own software, Although I do 
compile (and develop), I much prefer typing 'yum install  
' when I need to satisfy dependencies.




[GNU/] Linux


(Note, linux proper is just the kernel, what you mean is a installed
distribution.)


is getting more user friendly,


No, linux-at-large is more and more getting in the way of the local
administrator, forcing one to install more and more stuff that might
not be wanted, with big userspace things like gnome making distruptive
changes -- that is not user friendliness.


Choice, choice choice. Although I'm not familiar with all, I'm pretty 
sure there are bare-bones distributions. If there aren't, well, you have 
to choice to create your own.



and most users are not able
to compile software,


This is where education comes in.


I agree.


If people want to use ms-windows or macos-x, they take courses for that.
Why not educate yourself when you come to us ?
Why should we care for the "lazy" people ?


Perhaps a bit elitist. I don't know *any* windows or mac user 
(non-system administrator) that ever took a course besides possibly 
online "getting started" videos. I do agree that education would help 
but open-source software authors aren't usually the most prolific 
documentation authors (myself included).





plus some distributions make it specially hard (debian, ubuntu, fedora,
opensuse) by having the libs installed but not the headers.


I find this quite nice, to be honest. If I need the headers, I grab 
them, if not, I don't -- again, choice.




If you go the distribution route, don't forget that their maintainers
find ways to make their job easier.

So for debian you do apt-get build-dep  for a given
package. Yes, for random sources you have to hunt down the dependancies,
but you have to do that for binaries to.


Releasing software on windows or mac, even open-source, *always* comes
in a binary,
and most users come from there.


Microsoft and Apple dictate user interfaces, if people comes to us, why
do you believe they want the same relationship ?

For the arguments sake, I say:

People coming to Microsoft have to learn the Microsoft way, ditto
Apple. People coming to the free-software-movement has to learn it's
ways, and one fundamental thing here is source code.


Fair enough, but why cut down binary distributions? If the software 
developer wishes to create a binary, more power to him/her -- again, 
choice. That's what makes linux strong.



David

___
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev

Re: [LAD] Releasing source code is not enough, I think...

[Fons Adriaensen]

On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 05:55:04AM +, 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.

> [GNU/] Linux is getting more user friendly,

Depends very much on what you understand by 'user friendly'. 

> and most users are not able to compile software,

They can learn to do it. It's not rocket science.

> 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.

> 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 ?


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
Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev

Re: [LAD] Releasing source code is not enough, I think...

[R. Mattes]

On Tue, 21 Jan 2014 12:40:23 +, Fons Adriaensen wrote
> On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 05:55:04AM +, 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, plase, 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
> Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
> http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev


--
R. Mattes -
Hochschule fuer Musik Freiburg
r...@inm.mh-freiburg.de

___
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev

Re: [LAD] Releasing source code is not enough, I think...

[John Rigg]

On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 12:40:23PM +, Fons Adriaensen wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 05:55:04AM +, 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.

I'm inclined to agree with Fons here. There seems to be a growing culture
of expecting Windows-style hand-holding for free software. In the Windows
(and Mac) world you pay money for this. I think it's unreasonable to
expect the same level of support from unpaid developers. (If they have the
time to do it that's great, but it shouldn't be taken for granted).

John
___
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev

Re: [LAD] Releasing source code is not enough, I think...

[Gene Heskett]

On Tuesday 21 January 2014 08:15:53 John Rigg did opine:

> On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 12:40:23PM +, Fons Adriaensen wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 05:55:04AM +, 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.
> 
> I'm inclined to agree with Fons here. There seems to be a growing
> culture of expecting Windows-style hand-holding for free software. In
> the Windows (and Mac) world you pay money for this. I think it's
> unreasonable to expect the same level of support from unpaid
> developers. (If they have the time to do it that's great, but it
> shouldn't be taken for granted).
> 
> John

+1 John.  Which is why, as I age, I try to always say thank you when I come 
hat in hand asking for help.  At 79 & still counting, I find myself doing 
more and more of that.

Cheers, Gene
-- 
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
 soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
Genes Web page 
Required reading: 

Lady Nancy Astor:
"Winston, if you were my husband, I'd put poison in your coffee."
Winston Churchill:
"Nancy, if you were my wife, I'd drink it."
A pen in the hand of this president is far more
dangerous than 200 million guns in the hands of
 law-abiding citizens.
___
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev

Re: [LAD] Releasing source code is not enough, I think...

[Filipe Coelho]

On 01/21/2014 12:40 PM, Fons Adriaensen wrote:

On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 05:55:04AM +, 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.


Enough for most users to install your software.
See my next point.


and most users are not able to compile software,

They can learn to do it. It's not rocket science.


I think it's not up to the users to understand how software compilation 
works.
Car drivers don't need to understand how a car engine works. It helps 
sometimes, but that's usually a task for the mechanic.


Some distributions are making compilation specially hard.
Most source tarballs install to /usr/local, but in Debian (and maybe 
others) that dir is not considered by pkg-config.
Example: building stuff like NTK and then NON will result in an error 
(NTK is a dependency of NON apps). Although NTK was installed before, 
users need to manually setup PKG_CONFIG_PATH for NON software to see it...


I seriously don't wish any new user to have to put up with this.
It might be easy for us that are now used to this sort of things, but 
not for them.



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.


It's not always easy to figure out the header package files. (like ALSA 
= libasound2-dev)
Also in Debian installing libjack-dev changes your current JACK version 
from jack2 to jack1. We need to install libjack-jackd2-dev instead... :S



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 ?


It won't create packages, it will create binaries - which is what users 
are looking for.


Take a look at what happened to the recent release of deteriorate-lv2.
Author released only source code, so users have to compile in order to 
use it.
But due to a variety of reasons it's failing for some of them. Those 
users will simply skip the software and not use it, because well, they 
can't...


If there was binaries, users could try that first.
Commercial software always releases binaries (they have to anyway), and 
I don't see the users complaining much about those.
When done right, binaries can cover most Linux users, which will be 
happy to be using software instead of trying to figure out dependencies, 
paths, headers, etc etc.


___
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev

Re: [LAD] Releasing source code is not enough, I think...

[Harry van Haaren]

On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 3:34 PM, Filipe Coelho  wrote:
> On 01/21/2014 12:40 PM, Fons Adriaensen wrote:
>> They can learn to do it [compile software, -Harry]. It's not rocket
science.
>
> I think it's not up to the users to understand how software compilation
works.

I feel this is an important factor in this discussion: there are various
different users: for the purpose of this thread, lets assume two groups of
users, affectionatly named "techie" and "non-techie".
A techie user can (relatively easily) learn to compile software, they have
some *interest* in techie topics, like compiling.
The non-techie user, however, wants to make a new radio hit. They have *NO
interest* in techie: they wish to *use* a software. Without complications.

In light of the two groups of users above, I think it shows that Filipe is
catering for the "non-techie" audience, and allowing them to use software.


On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 3:40 PM, Filipe Coelho  wrote:
> Most Linux (audio) users used to be developers as well, I don't believe
that's the case anymore.
I'll agree: the "non-techie" group is growing, who wish to use, more than
to "techie".
___
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev

Re: [LAD] Releasing source code is not enough, I think...

[Filipe Coelho]

On 01/21/2014 07:50 AM, Nils Gey wrote:

On Tue, 21 Jan 2014 05:55:04 +
Filipe Coelho  wrote:


Hi there everyone, specially developers.

I think we should stop assuming releasing source code is enough.
[GNU/] Linux is getting more user friendly, and most users are not able
to compile software,

I agree. But where, from your standpoint, is the package manager?


I don't expect package maintainers to get a fresh new software into 
their distro right away.
Even when they do it's most likely to the next / unstable / testing 
repository. Most of the time users have to wait until the package is 
backported, if that ever happens.


That takes away to "freshness" of the software (and the excitement to 
try it out).
When users are unable to use your software, they will eventually forget 
about it.



What I would like to see is a change of culture, more tailored to the users who 
like experimenting and trying new things out:
In Windows I like that it is customary to offer all-in-one binaries, even if 
you only release a super-early techdemo in a forum.
For me that means: Especially for some super-early tech demos in forums. 
Instead of an undocumented github page where I have to read the code first to 
figure out the dependencies.


Heh, even for some github repos some developers know that if they want 
any usage on win or osx they have to release a testing binary.
Most Linux (audio) users used to be developers as well, I don't believe 
that's the case anymore.


___
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev

Re: [LAD] Releasing source code is not enough, I think...

[Florian Paul Schmidt]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

Sorry for the duplicate, John, pressed the wrong button ;D

On 21.01.2014 14:11, John Rigg wrote:
> I'm inclined to agree with Fons here. There seems to be a growing 
> culture of expecting Windows-style hand-holding for free software. 
> In the Windows (and Mac) world you pay money for this. I think
> it's unreasonable to expect the same level of support from unpaid 
> developers. (If they have the time to do it that's great, but it 
> shouldn't be taken for granted).

Interesting. I had a discussion on a related topic with Filipe on IRC
just a few days ago: What kind of choices should a software make for
the user? In our example it was the usability (inversely correlated to
the number of actions required by the user (mouse clicks, etc.)) of
e.g. a free connection patch canvas vs. e.g. a mixer strip which
restricts the signal flow to be linear for a usecase of e.g. adding a
plugin to a plugin host and getting sound out of it.

My opinion is: It is very much OK for a software to make choices to
streamline common usecases if it happens to be not at the expense of
the freedom to accomplish the more complex task. In our example this
would be a mixer strip abstraction over the free patch canvas, but
where the user has the option to change to the free patch canvas if
desired.

I see it somewhat similarly here. Providing binaries for software does
not restrict the user from downloading the source package and
compiling the software itself. We're not discussing providing binaries
ONLY, but providing binaries as convenience for a common usecase.

Have fun,
Flo


-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.14 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJS3paqAAoJEA5f4Coltk8ZQMYH/1d4BRXndqF8QKzYgdngNtz4
dL+e9+qIREx56fD14Keu0XCrjh+YxaUiDUr6UE+FmqZV6kVWh0ChjYKDPfsz+jPb
kPtEsWT3M6iDK6mMATui1gpYbpmZQQic1bmdZuOgsd/2UmzXsJ6U7PWUd7wCTh3L
FMlFXlTgGBtjN9GxnszUuasqyWhmLP34LlCa0fyg0OumY/Rf/ilIJt/Yoke9vBj9
w/FlpjSLYDM9Bhu4Ha6ZPsHEW1ocoYsrJi3FqOy2UhT5+JKdRQeSNHXZ8Qw5PJ7N
6SbDdF9pzJpKm+RbYUSy1j+WigEcJMsdll6TZaxY0Q9HmzHI93/CcLwt3C3ipMg=
=SNAv
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
___
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev

Re: [LAD] Releasing source code is not enough, I think...

[Filipe Coelho]

On 01/21/2014 01:06 PM, R. Mattes wrote:

On Tue, 21 Jan 2014 12:40:23 +, Fons Adriaensen wrote

On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 05:55:04AM +, 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.


Depending on your distribution, you might need to wait several months to 
get a minor software update.
I created the KXStudio repositories to help this, and I'm making them 
Debian compatible so that it works as widely as possible.


I used to have to build stuff manually every-time I wanted a small 
package update.
Sometimes the build completed ok but the app didn't run (segfault at 
start), what then?
I'd be tempted to remove what I just installed, but not all software 
comes with a "make uninstall".
So crap... I had broken app X and I didn't knew how to fix it or to 
revert to the previous condition...


I seriously don't want new users to have to go through that!


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?


I don't claim to have any magic thing here.
I've just been setting up a toolchain + some static libs to make sure my 
Debian packages work for as much users as possible.


It's 32bit and 64bit only. And SSE optimization is enabled for all 
builds (where I believe is safe to do so).

This might make the binaries useless for some, but it's a starting point.


Why not try them?
See for yourself at http://kxstudio.sourceforge.net/Downloads#Binaries.
I use Python3-Qt4 for the UIs in my apps, yet the binaries still work 
fine for someone without python3 (like Debian 6, as used by AVLinux).


(They are packaged into a self-extracting archive, but that's a 
different topic. I just personally prefer all-in-one bundled app vs a 
bunch of files that need a specific script to start up).


___
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev

Re: [LAD] Releasing source code is not enough, I think...

[Ralf Mardorf]

On Tue, 2014-01-21 at 15:55 +, Filipe Coelho wrote:
> I'd be tempted to remove what I just installed, but not all software
> comes with a "make uninstall".

But that should be provided, if it shouldn't be provided, then taking a
look to the makefile might give some hints what was installed to what
location. Btw. it can't harm to at least try checkinstall instead of
make install, this is possible most of the times.

> So crap... I had broken app X and I didn't knew how to fix it or to
> revert to the previous condition...

Restoring from a backup? Even non-techie (non-power-users) should
consider to backup their complete Linux DAWs and data.


___
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev

Re: [LAD] Releasing source code is not enough, I think...

[Filipe Coelho]

On 01/21/2014 04:07 PM, Ralf Mardorf wrote:

On Tue, 2014-01-21 at 15:55 +, Filipe Coelho wrote:

I'd be tempted to remove what I just installed, but not all software
comes with a "make uninstall".

But that should be provided, if it shouldn't be provided, then taking a
look to the makefile might give some hints what was installed to what
location. Btw. it can't harm to at least try checkinstall instead of
make install, this is possible most of the times.


Well, first, it's up to the developers to provide that and not the user.
Second, I don't think *any* new user will understand what a Makefile does...

Regarding checkinstall, that's not a widely known trick.
I still meet new users on IRC and forums that never heard of it.




So crap... I had broken app X and I didn't knew how to fix it or to
revert to the previous condition...

Restoring from a backup? Even non-techie (non-power-users) should
consider to backup their complete Linux DAWs and data.


How do you backup an installed application?

In my case I had an older version of an app I wanted to upgrade.
The distribution didn't had the new version so I had to build one myself.
Because I was a noob something probably went wrong during the build, 
resulting in a broken app.

The app installed to /usr/local which overrides distro's /usr packages.
But I didn't knew that (noob alert ;)) so what could I have done?
Reinstalling the app's package did nothing (still /usr/local files present).

For a new Linux user, I understand this is when they start thinking 
about going back...



___
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev

Re: [LAD] Releasing source code is not enough, I think...

[Ralf Mardorf]

On Tue, 2014-01-21 at 17:07 +0100, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
> On Tue, 2014-01-21 at 15:55 +, Filipe Coelho wrote:
> > I'd be tempted to remove what I just installed, but not all software
> > comes with a "make uninstall".
> 
> But that should be provided, if it shouldn't be provided, then taking a
> look to the makefile might give some hints what was installed to what
> location. Btw. it can't harm to at least try checkinstall instead of
> make install, this is possible most of the times.
> 
> > So crap... I had broken app X and I didn't knew how to fix it or to
> > revert to the previous condition...
> 
> Restoring from a backup? Even non-techie (non-power-users) should
> consider to backup their complete Linux DAWs and data.

PS: There are several Linux communities willing to help
"non-techie-users" (non-power-users).


___
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev

Re: [LAD] Releasing source code is not enough, I think...

[Ralf Mardorf]

On Tue, 2014-01-21 at 16:16 +, Filipe Coelho wrote:


> How do you backup an installed application?

Using another Linux install (a live media would be ok too) I backup my
complete Linux DAW.

> For a new Linux user, I understand this is when they start thinking
> about going back...

Going back to where? Are you talking about users who first used Apple or
Microsoft based systems? 1. Not every user did use Apple or Microsoft
based systems. 2. Even if people come from e.g. Windows, why did they
decide to switch, if they like it e.g. the Windows way? It's ok to take
a look what perhaps is better when using e.g. Windows and to think about
making it better for Linux userspace too, but starting to clone e.g.
Windows is the wrong way. Btw. we all learned to use Linux and to share
this knowledge. Subscribe to *buntu list, if somebody has got a problem,
not seldom she/he gets "help" from other users who have got no
knowledge, IOW they do absolutely wrong things to troubleshoot, even
doing minimal web research is out of fashion. The idea of FLOSS for
Linux, FreeBSD etc. is to pass on the knowledge from one to the other.
If sharing basic knowledge should be too "techie", then Linux, FreeBSD
and other OS might be the wrong OS for such an user. There also is FLOSS
available for e.g. Windows.

___
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev

Re: [LAD] Releasing source code is not enough, I think...

[Filipe Coelho]

On 01/21/2014 04:31 PM, Ralf Mardorf wrote:

On Tue, 2014-01-21 at 16:16 +, Filipe Coelho wrote:



How do you backup an installed application?

Using another Linux install (a live media would be ok too) I backup my
complete Linux DAW.


hm, so you're saying users should boot a live media everytime they want 
to compile some software?





For a new Linux user, I understand this is when they start thinking
about going back...

Going back to where? Are you talking about users who first used Apple or
Microsoft based systems?


Yes, Linux is still only 1-2% of global pc users.
It should be expected that most new Linux users come from other OSes.


2. Even if people come from e.g. Windows, why did they
decide to switch, if they like it e.g. the Windows way?


Everyone will have different reasons.
Speaking for myself, I wanted to try something different and also stop 
with the piracy.



starting to clone e.g. Windows is the wrong way.


I believe this too. Each OS works in different ways.

My post is not about this though.
It's about new linux users are having a very hard time getting new 
software to work for them.



Subscribe to *buntu list, if somebody has got a problem


I still have issues with mailing lists...
I never liked them, and don't believe I ever will.

I might be wrong on this, but I believe most "non-techie" users have 
never used mailing lists (or even IRC).

It was surely a surprise to me at first.

___
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev

Re: [LAD] Releasing source code is not enough, I think...

[Philipp Überbacher]

On Tue, 21 Jan 2014 05:55:04 +
Filipe Coelho  wrote:

> Hi there everyone, specially developers.
> 
> I think we should stop assuming releasing source code is enough.
> [GNU/] Linux is getting more user friendly, and most users are not
> able to compile software,
> plus some distributions make it specially hard (debian, ubuntu,
> fedora, opensuse) by having the libs installed but not the headers.
> 
> Releasing software on windows or mac, even open-source, *always*
> comes in a binary,
> and most users come from there.

Hi Filipe,

I do think that releasing source code is enough.
What is more important than binaries is to have a sane and properly
configured build system. By that I mean standard tools like Makefiles,
waf, scons, CMake or whatever is used nowadays with a sane standard
configuration and the necessary switches to account for the differences
between the distributions.

I mean this in contrast to half-arsed and ad-hoc solutions. Just
yesterday I spent the whole evening unsuccessfully trying to build a
piece of software that uses a half-working CMake configuration combined
with binary blobs of dependencies and a bunch of distro-specific
shell scripts. The more I tried to fix it, the worse it got.

Or take LuaAV, a piece of software I've tried to build twice during the
last few years, unsuccessfully. They have a ubuntu-specific shell
script to install the dependencies and a custom lua script to build.

Stuff like that sucks, it sucks who just want to give it a shot, it
sucks for packagers, and it sucks for people who want to contribute. A
binary package would only help the first group, and that is assuming it
works without problems on any system.

I don't think that 'magic binaries' that are easy to build and work
everywhere are possible. If you are right and there are fewer
technically inclined users and developers, we should conserve their
time instead of wasting it on building distro specific packages. 

Regards,
Philipp

-- 
JID: mu...@jit.si
___
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev

Re: [LAD] Releasing source code is not enough, I think...

[Filipe Coelho]

On 01/21/2014 04:40 PM, Philipp Überbacher wrote:

On Tue, 21 Jan 2014 05:55:04 +
Filipe Coelho  wrote:


Hi there everyone, specially developers.

I think we should stop assuming releasing source code is enough.
[GNU/] Linux is getting more user friendly, and most users are not
able to compile software,
plus some distributions make it specially hard (debian, ubuntu,
fedora, opensuse) by having the libs installed but not the headers.

Releasing software on windows or mac, even open-source, *always*
comes in a binary,
and most users come from there.

Hi Filipe,

I do think that releasing source code is enough.
What is more important than binaries is to have a sane and properly
configured build system. By that I mean standard tools like Makefiles,
waf, scons, CMake or whatever is used nowadays with a sane standard
configuration and the necessary switches to account for the differences
between the distributions.

I mean this in contrast to half-arsed and ad-hoc solutions. Just
yesterday I spent the whole evening unsuccessfully trying to build a
piece of software that uses a half-working CMake configuration combined
with binary blobs of dependencies and a bunch of distro-specific
shell scripts. The more I tried to fix it, the worse it got.

Or take LuaAV, a piece of software I've tried to build twice during the
last few years, unsuccessfully. They have a ubuntu-specific shell
script to install the dependencies and a custom lua script to build.

Stuff like that sucks, it sucks who just want to give it a shot, it
sucks for packagers, and it sucks for people who want to contribute. A
binary package would only help the first group, and that is assuming it
works without problems on any system.


This point is exactly why I think binaries are needed.


I don't think that 'magic binaries' that are easy to build and work
everywhere are possible. If you are right and there are fewer
technically inclined users and developers, we should conserve their
time instead of wasting it on building distro specific packages.


There are no such thing as "magic binaries", nor have I stated I have them.

But I think *trying* to provide binaries is better than none at all.

___
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev

Re: [LAD] Releasing source code is not enough, I think...

[John Rigg]

On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 03:34:05PM +, Filipe Coelho wrote:
> I think it's not up to the users to understand how software
> compilation works.

That depends on the developer's intention when releasing source
code. Some very good Linux audio software was written for the
developers' own use, and the source code only released as a
favour to those who might also have a use for it. Some of the
LADSPA and LV2 plugins I use most fall into this category.

If a piece of free software isn't available as a distro package,
I think it's very much up to the user to find out how to compile
it if the developer doesn't have time to offer unpaid support.

John
___
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev

Re: [LAD] Releasing source code is not enough, I think...

[Filipe Coelho]

On 01/21/2014 05:03 PM, John Rigg wrote:
If a piece of free software isn't available as a distro package, I 
think it's very much up to the user to find out how to compile it if 
the developer doesn't have time to offer unpaid support.


Or... the user will simply not bother and won't use your software.
But I guess for some developers here that seems to be the intention. ;)

___
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev

Re: [LAD] Releasing source code is not enough, I think...

[Fons Adriaensen]

On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 03:34:05PM +, Filipe Coelho wrote:

> I seriously don't wish any new user to have to put up with this.
> It might be easy for us that are now used to this sort of things,
> but not for them.

Then they should wait until their distro or someone else provides
a package. Or pay someone to do the work for them, just as they
have to for commercial software, or for the mechanic you mention.
Or use a distro that usually provides a shorter release cycle,
e.g. Arch (which is not for noobs).

> >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 ?
> 
> It won't create packages, it will create binaries - which is what
> users are looking for.

And how are these installed ? Bypassing the distro package management
is a sure recipe for misery. Maybe not immediately, with a bit of
luck the binary you just copied to /usr/bin may work. But sooner or
later your users will get some serious trouble, because you're messing
up their systems. If that's what you want, go on...
 
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
Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev

Re: [LAD] Releasing source code is not enough, I think...

[Filipe Coelho]

On 01/21/2014 05:00 PM, Fons Adriaensen wrote:

On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 03:34:05PM +, Filipe Coelho wrote:


I seriously don't wish any new user to have to put up with this.
It might be easy for us that are now used to this sort of things,
but not for them.

Then they should wait until their distro or someone else provides
a package. Or pay someone to do the work for them, just as they
have to for commercial software, or for the mechanic you mention.
Or use a distro that usually provides a shorter release cycle,
e.g. Arch (which is not for noobs).


What about all the freeware software I see in Windows/OSX?
It's the only way they (software devs) have to get some attention to it. 
afaik no one is paying them.


I don't think a sane person is willing to wait ~6 months and do a 
reinstall just for a bug-fix release (in case of Ubuntu).





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 ?

It won't create packages, it will create binaries - which is what
users are looking for.

And how are these installed ? Bypassing the distro package management
is a sure recipe for misery. Maybe not immediately, with a bit of
luck the binary you just copied to /usr/bin may work. But sooner or
later your users will get some serious trouble, because you're messing
up their systems. If that's what you want, go on...
  


I don't see how this is worse than having the users installing files to 
/usr/local.
I actually think it's much better, since it won't require root to 
install. Just run the binary.


~/bin also exists, although not all distros use it.

___
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev

Re: [LAD] Releasing source code is not enough, I think...

[Gene Heskett]

On Tuesday 21 January 2014 11:50:12 Filipe Coelho did opine:

> On 01/21/2014 04:40 PM, Philipp ـberbacher wrote:
> > On Tue, 21 Jan 2014 05:55:04 +
> > 
> > Filipe Coelho  wrote:
> >> Hi there everyone, specially developers.
> >> 
> >> I think we should stop assuming releasing source code is enough.
> >> [GNU/] Linux is getting more user friendly, and most users are not
> >> able to compile software,
> >> plus some distributions make it specially hard (debian, ubuntu,
> >> fedora, opensuse) by having the libs installed but not the headers.
> >> 
> >> Releasing software on windows or mac, even open-source, *always*
> >> comes in a binary,
> >> and most users come from there.
> > 
> > Hi Filipe,
> > 
> > I do think that releasing source code is enough.
> > What is more important than binaries is to have a sane and properly
> > configured build system. By that I mean standard tools like Makefiles,
> > waf, scons, CMake or whatever is used nowadays with a sane standard
> > configuration and the necessary switches to account for the
> > differences between the distributions.
> > 
> > I mean this in contrast to half-arsed and ad-hoc solutions. Just
> > yesterday I spent the whole evening unsuccessfully trying to build a
> > piece of software that uses a half-working CMake configuration
> > combined with binary blobs of dependencies and a bunch of
> > distro-specific shell scripts. The more I tried to fix it, the worse
> > it got.
> > 
> > Or take LuaAV, a piece of software I've tried to build twice during
> > the last few years, unsuccessfully. They have a ubuntu-specific shell
> > script to install the dependencies and a custom lua script to build.
> > 
> > Stuff like that sucks, it sucks who just want to give it a shot, it
> > sucks for packagers, and it sucks for people who want to contribute. A
> > binary package would only help the first group, and that is assuming
> > it works without problems on any system.
> 
> This point is exactly why I think binaries are needed.

IMO, no.  Binaries ALWAYS turn out to have been built on some system 
needing some obscure library that isn't available on the system you are 
running.  So, wanting to try it, one wastes several hours downloading and 
trying to build the missing dependencies until one finally realizes that on 
the distro you are using, its never going to happen.  So please, give us a 
tarball of the source, with enough tools to build it from scratch so it 
does have a snowballs chance in hell of actually running on our system.

If it won't build on a 4 year old ubuntu LTS using nothing but the build-
essentials tools, the chances of its building anyplace but on your home 
machine aren't too measurable.  Give us a source only tarball that builds 
there, and you will have around half the bases covered.

OTOH, pcLOS is a dead stable system, but that is ONLY if all you want to do 
is web browse and email.  Adding anything else is a very masochistic, and 
often fruitless effort because the only libraries supplied are those that 
Texstar himself uses. 

> > I don't think that 'magic binaries' that are easy to build and work
> > everywhere are possible. If you are right and there are fewer
> > technically inclined users and developers, we should conserve their
> > time instead of wasting it on building distro specific packages.
> 
> There are no such thing as "magic binaries", nor have I stated I have
> them.
> 
> But I think *trying* to provide binaries is better than none at all.

Cheers, Gene
-- 
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
 soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
Genes Web page 
Required reading: 

When Marriage is Outlawed, Only Outlaws will have Inlaws.
A pen in the hand of this president is far more
dangerous than 200 million guns in the hands of
 law-abiding citizens.
___
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev

Re: [LAD] Releasing source code is not enough, I think...

[Filipe Coelho]

On 01/21/2014 05:09 PM, Gene Heskett wrote:

On Tuesday 21 January 2014 11:50:12 Filipe Coelho did opine:


On 01/21/2014 04:40 PM, Philipp ـberbacher wrote:

On Tue, 21 Jan 2014 05:55:04 +

Filipe Coelho  wrote:

Hi there everyone, specially developers.

I think we should stop assuming releasing source code is enough.
[GNU/] Linux is getting more user friendly, and most users are not
able to compile software,
plus some distributions make it specially hard (debian, ubuntu,
fedora, opensuse) by having the libs installed but not the headers.

Releasing software on windows or mac, even open-source, *always*
comes in a binary,
and most users come from there.

Hi Filipe,

I do think that releasing source code is enough.
What is more important than binaries is to have a sane and properly
configured build system. By that I mean standard tools like Makefiles,
waf, scons, CMake or whatever is used nowadays with a sane standard
configuration and the necessary switches to account for the
differences between the distributions.

I mean this in contrast to half-arsed and ad-hoc solutions. Just
yesterday I spent the whole evening unsuccessfully trying to build a
piece of software that uses a half-working CMake configuration
combined with binary blobs of dependencies and a bunch of
distro-specific shell scripts. The more I tried to fix it, the worse
it got.

Or take LuaAV, a piece of software I've tried to build twice during
the last few years, unsuccessfully. They have a ubuntu-specific shell
script to install the dependencies and a custom lua script to build.

Stuff like that sucks, it sucks who just want to give it a shot, it
sucks for packagers, and it sucks for people who want to contribute. A
binary package would only help the first group, and that is assuming
it works without problems on any system.

This point is exactly why I think binaries are needed.

IMO, no.  Binaries ALWAYS turn out to have been built on some system
needing some obscure library that isn't available on the system you are
running.  So, wanting to try it, one wastes several hours downloading and
trying to build the missing dependencies until one finally realizes that on
the distro you are using, its never going to happen.  So please, give us a
tarball of the source, with enough tools to build it from scratch so it
does have a snowballs chance in hell of actually running on our system.

If it won't build on a 4 year old ubuntu LTS using nothing but the build-
essentials tools, the chances of its building anyplace but on your home
machine aren't too measurable.  Give us a source only tarball that builds
there, and you will have around half the bases covered.


That's why I want to make a developer-oriented tutorial about this.
It will explain how to get gcc4.8 in an old Ubuntu 10.04 chroot, 
together with a few static libs as well.

(It's the same method I'm using for building generic debian packages)

I've been using this for my own software binaries and the only complaint 
I received was about a CentOS user (it required qt >= 4.6, which he 
didn't have).



___
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev

Re: [LAD] Releasing source code is not enough, I think...

[Fons Adriaensen]

On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 05:11:10PM +, Filipe Coelho wrote:

> >And how are these installed ? Bypassing the distro package management
> >is a sure recipe for misery. Maybe not immediately, with a bit of
> >luck the binary you just copied to /usr/bin may work. But sooner or
> >later your users will get some serious trouble, because you're messing
> >up their systems. If that's what you want, go on...
> 
> I don't see how this is worse than having the users installing files
> to /usr/local.

Really ? Package managers don't care about /usr/local and will never
touch it. It's a completely separate world. It exists just for that
reason.

They *do* care about /usr/bin and /usr/lib. Managing those dirs (and
some others) is why package managers exist in the first place. Because
in all except the most trivial cases, installing an app and making sure
it works will involve a bit more than putting a binary in /usr/bin. 

> I actually think it's much better, since it won't require root to
> install. Just run the binary.

Oh dear. Such naivity is really touching...

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
Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev

Re: [LAD] Releasing source code is not enough, I think...

[Filipe Coelho]

On 01/21/2014 05:26 PM, Fons Adriaensen wrote:

On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 05:11:10PM +, Filipe Coelho wrote:


And how are these installed ? Bypassing the distro package management
is a sure recipe for misery. Maybe not immediately, with a bit of
luck the binary you just copied to /usr/bin may work. But sooner or
later your users will get some serious trouble, because you're messing
up their systems. If that's what you want, go on...

I don't see how this is worse than having the users installing files
to /usr/local.

Really ? Package managers don't care about /usr/local and will never
touch it. It's a completely separate world. It exists just for that
reason.


I was referring to user-installed compiled software. Most of them goes 
into /usr/local/.


Re: I think having a bunch of files in /usr/local/ is much worse than a 
single binary.




I actually think it's much better, since it won't require root to
install. Just run the binary.

Oh dear. Such naivity is really touching...


Thanks :) /s

Anyway, if a software requires stuff installed system-wide *and* it 
can't work in a local dir, then I think distributing binaries is useless 
for it.

For those, yes, a package manager is not only better but I believe required.

___
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev

Re: [LAD] Releasing source code is not enough, I think...

[Ralf Mardorf]

On Tue, 2014-01-21 at 17:11 +, Filipe Coelho wrote:
> What about all the freeware software I see in Windows/OSX?

Those will only run on special versions. They provide binaries for e.g.
98se/XP or Vista etc.. There are no different startup processes, no
different desktop environments, etc. pp.. My iPad 2 more often crashes,
then it's working and there's no official way to downgrade to a working
state, resp. to restore from a backup, Linux does provide ways to
downgrade and to restore from backups.

And as I already mentioned, Linux, FreeBSD etc. FLOSS has the intention
to pass on the knowledge. *buntus often try to clone Apple and
Microsoft, so many *buntu users don't get the good knowledge to set-up,
troubleshoot and repair their Linux userspace, but instead they need to
spend doubled that much time with using configuration GUIs, dconf and
all that annoying stuff. The KISS principle to set-up a Linux install
isn't harder to learn than all that click-automaticall-GUI-crap.

If a developer would set up something to install binaries by an
installer ignoring the package management, it perhaps is as time
consuming as building packages for each release of each distro.

You ask about the backup! Yes, people should make backups regularly, not
before building an app, but often enough to be able to restore a working
DAW without losing too much. Users in addition could visit the homepage
of the distro they use and read comments about updates etc.. Linux is
better compared to Windows, because this knowledge is shared and used.
If we stop sharing this knowhow and stop using it, Linux will not be
that good in the future.

FWIW, some provide binaries for free as in beer for Linux userspace but
no source code and this is often done for Windows too. The software is
free as in beer, but the knowledge is a secret.

Regards,
Ralf

___
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev

Re: [LAD] Releasing source code is not enough, I think...

[Filipe Coelho]

On 01/21/2014 05:57 PM, Ralf Mardorf wrote:

On Tue, 2014-01-21 at 17:11 +, Filipe Coelho wrote:

What about all the freeware software I see in Windows/OSX?

Those will only run on special versions. They provide binaries for e.g.
98se/XP or Vista etc.. There are no different startup processes, no
different desktop environments, etc. pp..


That's why I'm planning to do a small, *developer*-oriented tutorial on 
how to get the most "generic" binaries possible.

Something that can work as widely as possible.

Have you not ready my first post at all?


My iPad 2 more often crashes, then it's working and there's no official
way to downgrade to a working state, resp. to restore from a backup,
Linux does provide ways to downgrade and to restore from backups.


tablets are a different ecosystem, we should ignore it here.

The desktops systems usually have a way to downgrade - just uninstall 
your current version and install the previous one.
A good example of this is uTorrent. Users are not happy with the last 
releases (includes ads and bloated features), so they download and 
install an older version.

Having different versions of an app it's not unique to Linux.


PS: I'm ignoring the rest of your post, it doesn't seem to me to have 
anything to do with the matter at hand.


___
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev

Re: [LAD] Releasing source code is not enough, I think...

[Louigi Verona]

I kinda knew this would turn into an ideological debate.

As a user and not a developer, I would like to point out that the problem
with compilation is not that it is not "rocket science", but that it is a
tedious process that not all users want to go through even if they know how
to do it.

Back in my days of being new to GNU/Linux I compiled a lot of software and
even when being keenly interested in doing that I remember being very
frustrated as I can rarely recall an occasion when it just worked.

That means that if you do not have all the tools and dependencies, you know
as a fact that installing this application will take unpredictable amount
of time. Once it'll take you 2 minutes, another it can take up to a day,
which had happened to me.
Which is why I personally rely more on ppa's nowadays as I am a little bit
tired of compiling things. There are some programs that I never could
compile at all, for one reason or another.

So, this has very little to do with learning or intelligence. This has to
do with priorities. If a person's priority is to develop and not use, then
sure. If a person's main goal is to use GNU/Linux software, then his
priority would be to get it running, not dive each time into the
intricacies of how things work on code level.

Not to mention, fellas, that there is not much learning value in compiling
anyway. I mean, sometimes you just don't have all the dependencies and
after you go through the trouble of getting almost all of it, some library
requires you to have a different kernel version and there's that.

And in conclusion, I'd like to note that Filipe's suggestion is just that.
If you do not agree - you won't use his methods and will continue to
release sources. Those who agree will try out his way. So I see no problem
here.

L.V.
*http://www.louigiverona.ru/ *
___
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev

Re: [LAD] Releasing source code is not enough, I think...

[Dominique Michel]

Le Tue, 21 Jan 2014 17:11:10 +,
Filipe Coelho  a écrit :

> On 01/21/2014 05:00 PM, Fons Adriaensen wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 03:34:05PM +, Filipe Coelho wrote:
> >
> >> I seriously don't wish any new user to have to put up with this.
> >> It might be easy for us that are now used to this sort of things,
> >> but not for them.
> > Then they should wait until their distro or someone else provides
> > a package. Or pay someone to do the work for them, just as they
> > have to for commercial software, or for the mechanic you mention.
> > Or use a distro that usually provides a shorter release cycle,
> > e.g. Arch (which is not for noobs).
> 
> What about all the freeware software I see in Windows/OSX?
> It's the only way they (software devs) have to get some attention to
> it. afaik no one is paying them.
> 
> I don't think a sane person is willing to wait ~6 months and do a 
> reinstall just for a bug-fix release (in case of Ubuntu).
> 
> >
> >>> 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 ?
> >> It won't create packages, it will create binaries - which is what
> >> users are looking for.
> > And how are these installed ? Bypassing the distro package
> > management is a sure recipe for misery. Maybe not immediately, with
> > a bit of luck the binary you just copied to /usr/bin may work. But
> > sooner or later your users will get some serious trouble, because
> > you're messing up their systems. If that's what you want, go on...

It is why at the first place, I shifted to gentoo. When I install a
software myself, I first compile it and install it in /usr/local, but
this is just to see how the installation process work and its
dependencies. After that I remove it and do an ebuild. The result will
be the same, but with the same optimisations than the rest of the
system, and all the files, their dependencies and reverse
dependencies will be managed by portage.

If the software is audio related, I put it into the pro-audio overlay.
Otherwise, I do a bug report with the ebuild on the gentoo bugzilla
most of the times. Sometime I do both.

> >   
> 
> I don't see how this is worse than having the users installing files
> to /usr/local.
> I actually think it's much better, since it won't require root to 
> install. Just run the binary.
> 
> ~/bin also exists, although not all distros use it.
> 

Sure, it will be better than on windows where every thing is
installed at the same place, that with no management of the
libraries, but idiotic questions that even a programmer cannot answer. 
The users will be fine in most cases in the short run, but in the
long run, they will get in troubles.

This is the same problem with all the binary based distributions and
their additional repositories. More repositories you add, more troubles
you will get with broken deps when updating the system. And with files,
and maybe even libraries, installed into /usr/local, this is even
worst, because the system update will be fine, but the result will soon
or later be a broken system.

Dominique
___
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev

Re: [LAD] Releasing source code is not enough, I think...

[Joel Roth]

Ralf Mardorf wrote:

> AFAIK there are two projects working at a new file
> system hierarchy to make it easier to install software, what ever this
> means.

Which projects do you mean?

For a while I fooled around with Gobo Linux[1], around for
about a decade, whose developer makes a good technical case
for a modified file system hierarchy[2, 3]. It hasn't
collected a huge mindshare.

Cheers,

1. http://www.gobolinux.org/
2. http://www.gobolinux.org/index.php?page=k5
3. http://www.gobolinux.org/index.php?page=doc/articles/clueless

-- 
Joel Roth
  

___
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev

Re: [LAD] Releasing source code is not enough, I think...

[Filipe Coelho]

On 01/21/2014 07:10 PM, John Hammen wrote:

Then they should wait until their distro or someone else provides
> >a package. Or pay someone to do the work for them, just as they
> >have to for commercial software, or for the mechanic you mention.


(...)

the idea being: a person whose paid responsibility it is to make us 
LAUs happy with fresh new packages and, ideally also work with folks 
upstream on build sanity issues. Filipe, would you be willing to 
supervise such a person, feed them the less fun parts of what you do 
and check their work?


If the community is willing to pay for it, sure.
But I find that a bit hard to believe...

There's a difference on how KXStudio repositories are done vs regular 
debian/ubuntu repos.
Debian and Ubuntu usually build against a specific version, and don't 
usually do backports.
on KX repos I'm starting build all packages the same way (ie, the 
generic linux builds), and update software very often (sometimes minutes 
after release :D ).


I hate when distros only package new stuff for the their newest, 
unreleased/testing/upcoming version and completely ignore the users 
running stable versions... :(


___
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev

Re: [LAD] Releasing source code is not enough, I think...

[John Hammen]

On 01/21/2014 12:23 PM, Filipe Coelho wrote:

On 01/21/2014 07:10 PM, John Hammen wrote:

Then they should wait until their distro or someone else provides
> >a package. Or pay someone to do the work for them, just as they
> >have to for commercial software, or for the mechanic you mention.


(...)

the idea being: a person whose paid responsibility it is to make us 
LAUs happy with fresh new packages and, ideally also work with folks 
upstream on build sanity issues. Filipe, would you be willing to 
supervise such a person, feed them the less fun parts of what you do 
and check their work?


If the community is willing to pay for it, sure.
But I find that a bit hard to believe...

There's a difference on how KXStudio repositories are done vs regular 
debian/ubuntu repos.
Debian and Ubuntu usually build against a specific version, and don't 
usually do backports.
on KX repos I'm starting build all packages the same way (ie, the 
generic linux builds), and update software very often (sometimes 
minutes after release :D ).


I hate when distros only package new stuff for the their newest, 
unreleased/testing/upcoming version and completely ignore the users 
running stable versions... :(




it appears my original message didn't make it to the list:

have to speak up as a LAU and general OSS user: the lack of proper 
packaging is certainly a bit hostile to the end user, but I also agree 
with this sentiment - it is not the responsibility of the original 
developer, that their responsibility ends with the sane build (i.e. 
ignore the non-technical user, alright, but do be kind to those willing 
to build!)


but it is simple fact that the packaging (and associated dependency 
checking, testing etc.) is painstaking work and not as much fun as the 
app development, that's why I'm so grateful to people like the Debian 
maintainers, and more locally folks like AutoStatic and Filipe yourself 
- I cannot blame you for wanting to see more help in that department.


I'm so grateful in fact that I would personally pay $25/month to pay 
someone to do this kind of work, I guess I should shut up now and just 
start subscribing to kxstudio, but I have to throw it out there: what 
about hiring somebody from odesk.com or the like?
___
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev

Re: [LAD] Releasing source code is not enough, I think...

[Ralf Mardorf]

On Tue, 2014-01-21 at 09:01 -1000, Joel Roth wrote:
> Ralf Mardorf wrote:
> 
> > AFAIK there are two projects working at a new file
> > system hierarchy to make it easier to install software, what ever this
> > means.
> 
> Which projects do you mean?
> 
> For a while I fooled around with Gobo Linux[1], around for
> about a decade, whose developer makes a good technical case
> for a modified file system hierarchy[2, 3]. It hasn't
> collected a huge mindshare.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> 1. http://www.gobolinux.org/
> 2. http://www.gobolinux.org/index.php?page=k5
> 3. http://www.gobolinux.org/index.php?page=doc/articles/clueless

The problem is that I don't remember it and when I google for it, it
seems to be that I confused it with something else. IIRC there where
plans to make it easier to install software independent of dependencies.
Perhaps a misunderstanding or wrong remembrance. I guess each software
should get it's own directory, similar to /opt/software_foo.


___
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev

Re: [LAD] Releasing source code is not enough, I think...

[Dennis Schulmeister]

On Tue, 21 Jan 2014 13:11:21 +
John Rigg  wrote:

> I think it's unreasonable to
> expect the same level of support from unpaid developers. (If they have the
> time to do it that's great, but it shouldn't be taken for granted).

Not so in Windows land. Been there, done that a few years ago with a
fairly simple Python/GTK application. I can't remember how much effort I
spent to provide "just working" binaries to make it usable by even the
most non-techie, lazy, ignorant, you name it, users around. Not
counting personal support via private mails, forums and mailing lists.

Most messages I got were insulting at best. However I did have Italian
translation, provided by some Linux user. :-)

Dennis
___
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev

Re: [LAD] Releasing source code is not enough, I think...

[Ralf Mardorf]

On Tue, 2014-01-21 at 22:10 +0100, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
> On Tue, 2014-01-21 at 09:01 -1000, Joel Roth wrote:
> > Ralf Mardorf wrote:
> > 
> > > AFAIK there are two projects working at a new file
> > > system hierarchy to make it easier to install software, what ever this
> > > means.
> > 
> > Which projects do you mean?
> > 
> > For a while I fooled around with Gobo Linux[1], around for
> > about a decade, whose developer makes a good technical case
> > for a modified file system hierarchy[2, 3]. It hasn't
> > collected a huge mindshare.
> > 
> > Cheers,
> > 
> > 1. http://www.gobolinux.org/
> > 2. http://www.gobolinux.org/index.php?page=k5
> > 3. http://www.gobolinux.org/index.php?page=doc/articles/clueless
> 
> The problem is that I don't remember it and when I google for it, it
> seems to be that I confused it with something else. IIRC there where
> plans to make it easier to install software independent of dependencies.
> Perhaps a misunderstanding or wrong remembrance. I guess each software
> should get it's own directory, similar to /opt/software_foo.

PS: Sorry too long to read, but those links seem to be one of that
approaches. IIRC the other approach is from the systemd people or
Lennart Poetternig, but I can't find something related when googling,
just funny OT things.

Regards,
Ralf

-- 
That's something unrelated funny, while OTOH it's not really funny.
https://www.change.org/petitions/lennart-poettering-stop-writing-useless-programs-systemd-journal


___
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev

Re: [LAD] Releasing source code is not enough, I think...

[David Robillard]

On Tue, 2014-01-21 at 12:40 +, Fons Adriaensen wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 05:55:04AM +, 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.

Bingo.

... and packagers are much more adept at this than most upstream
developers.  It's not a very effective use of developer time to spend a
ton of it making binary packages.  n hours I spend doing that is n hours
I *don't* spend improving the actual software.  There are many people in
the world who can and do the packaging part, and few who can and do
effective work on the code.

Packagers provide a valuable service; having upstream developers try to
emulate commercial software distribution methods (against platform
norms, making their software weird and annoying) would be a giant step
backwards in several ways.

So, thanks, packagers.  If you want to make universal binary packages
for most Lignux systems, by all means, feel free.  I sure won't be.

-- 
dr


___
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev

Re: [LAD] Releasing source code is not enough, I think...

[Fons Adriaensen]

On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 09:37:37AM -0500, David Robillard wrote:
 
> Packagers provide a valuable service;

which is often underestimated, both in terms of importance
and the effort put into it.



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
Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev

Re: [LAD] Releasing source code is not enough, I think...

[Fred Gleason]

On Jan 21, 2014, at 08:06 24, R. Mattes  wrote:

> I think most posters so far totally underestimate the part of the 
> distribution.

Indeed yes...

I am in a somewhat unusual position in that, in addition to being the primary 
developer for an upstream project (Rivendell), I am also the Rivendell 
downstream maintainer for one particular platform (RedHat / CentOS / 
ScientificLinux).  This experience has taught me greatly to appreciate 
downstream maintainers in general — the complex task they perform (essentially 
that of ‘impedance matching’ an upstream project into the unique environment 
and ecosystem of a given distro) is one that is crucial for the success of any 
FOSS project.  As such, they deserve every bit as much respect as those who 
primarily work at the upstream level.  The experience has also been very 
helpful in teaching me to understand and work with the issues that arise with 
the other downstream maintainers for Rivendell.

I suspect that the OP is largely oblivious to the very existence of this 
'upstream/downstream' division of labor — it is, after all, pretty much unique 
to the FOSS world.

Cheers!


|-|
| Frederick F. Gleason, Jr. |   Chief Developer   |
|   |   Paravel Systems   |
|-|
| True leadership is the art of changing a group from what it is to what  |
| it ought to be. |
|  -- Virginia Allan  |
|-|

___
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev

Re: [LAD] Releasing source code is not enough, I think...

[Fred Gleason]

On Jan 21, 2014, at 13:10 30, Filipe Coelho  wrote:

> That's why I'm planning to do a small, *developer*-oriented tutorial on how 
> to get the most "generic" binaries possible.
> Something that can work as widely as possible.

Unfortunately, the ambit of a downstream maintainer is a lot larger than just 
producing a runnable binary.  Just some of the high points:

1) Do the menu item(s) integrate themselves into the overall tree in a way that 
makes sense given the distro’s overall menu arrangement?

2) Is the documentation installed in such a way that the distro’s native search 
tools can find it easily?

3) If the package involves adding system services, do they interoperate 
properly with the distro’s init system (SysV-ish vs. BSD-ish vs. Upstart). This 
one could use a book in its own right!

4) Can the package be installed and updated easily using the distro’s native 
package management tools —e.g. yum(8) or apt-get(8)?

5) Does the package lay out default data stores and configuration so the app 
will come up in a sane state ‘out of the box’?

6) And so on.  You get the idea…

Keep your downstream maintainers happy folks!  They determine much of how your 
user base perceives *your* project.

Cheers!


|-|
| Frederick F. Gleason, Jr. |   Chief Developer   |
|   |   Paravel Systems   |
|-|
|  A program is a lot like a nose |
|  Sometimes it runs, and sometimes it blows. |
| -- The Illiterati Programus, Canto I|
|-|

___
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev

Re: [LAD] Releasing source code is not enough, I think...

[Philipp Überbacher]

On Wed, 22 Jan 2014 16:49:06 -0500
Fred Gleason  wrote:

> On Jan 21, 2014, at 13:10 30, Filipe Coelho  wrote:
> 
> > That's why I'm planning to do a small, *developer*-oriented
> > tutorial on how to get the most "generic" binaries possible.
> > Something that can work as widely as possible.
> 
> Unfortunately, the ambit of a downstream maintainer is a lot larger
> than just producing a runnable binary.  Just some of the high points:
> 
> 1) Do the menu item(s) integrate themselves into the overall tree in
> a way that makes sense given the distro’s overall menu arrangement?

This is assuming some DE, and I guess such efforts are limited to the
two largest DEs out there.

> 2) Is the documentation installed in such a way that the distro’s
> native search tools can find it easily?

Also DE specific, I assume.

> 3) If the package involves adding system services, do they
> interoperate properly with the distro’s init system (SysV-ish vs.
> BSD-ish vs. Upstart). This one could use a book in its own right!

Or systemd, or ...

> 4) Can the package be installed and updated easily using the distro’s
> native package management tools —e.g. yum(8) or apt-get(8)?

Or pacman or ...

> 5) Does the package lay out default data stores and configuration so
> the app will come up in a sane state ‘out of the box’?
> 
> 6) And so on.  You get the idea…

It honestly bothers me when stuff is geared towards specific Distros or
DEs or package managers. Some people doing this stuff simply ignore
(or can't conceive) that there are other possible ways to do stuff. One
example I came across recently is this ticket regarding dbus:
https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=50955. Reading the
comments it seems to me that dbus was written with RPM in mind,
completely ignoring that other systems might do things differently.
It's not even a big difference in this case.
Distribution guys really shouldn't write system software.

Regarding the DE integration... well, I get the impression that too many
people assume the users are running gnome, or KDE, but mostly some form
of gnome these days. Shouldn't the DE guys bother with DE integration,
and maybe try to push it upstream? They apparently don't do that, so
this is mostly left to packagers. I don't even want to know how much
duplication of effort is going on there. I also don't like how much
packagers seem to focus on DEs (mostly gnome). It may be practical to
assume a mono culture, but we are luckily not there yet.

Sorry for the rant.

Regards,
Philipp
___
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev

Re: [LAD] Releasing source code is not enough, I think...

[Harry van Haaren]

On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 7:41 PM, Fred Gleason 
wrote:
> I suspect that the OP is largely oblivious to the very existence of this
'upstream/downstream' division of labor — it is, after all, pretty much
unique to the FOSS world.

Your suspicions are wrong there: Filipe maintains many packages for KX
Studio ( http://kxstudio.sourceforge.net/ ), and has extensive experience
in the area.
He's also very commited to ensuring up-to-date packages: something that
requires a lot of dedication, as I'm sure you know since you package too.
___
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev

Re: [LAD] Releasing source code is not enough, I think...

[Fred Gleason]

On Jan 22, 2014, at 19:19 12, Harry van Haaren  wrote:

> Your suspicions are wrong there: Filipe maintains many packages for KX Studio 
> ( http://kxstudio.sourceforge.net/ ), and has extensive experience in the 
> area.
> He's also very commited to ensuring up-to-date packages: something that 
> requires a lot of dedication, as I'm sure you know since you package too.

My bad, and my apologies Filipe!

Cheers!




|-|
| Frederick F. Gleason, Jr. |   Chief Developer   |
|   |   Paravel Systems   |
|-|
|  A room without books is like a body without a soul.|
| -- Cicero   |
|-|

___
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev

Re: [LAD] Releasing source code is not enough, I think...

[Dominique Michel]

Le Wed, 22 Jan 2014 16:49:06 -0500,
Fred Gleason  a écrit :

> On Jan 21, 2014, at 13:10 30, Filipe Coelho  wrote:
> 
> > That's why I'm planning to do a small, *developer*-oriented
> > tutorial on how to get the most "generic" binaries possible.
> > Something that can work as widely as possible.
> 
> Unfortunately, the ambit of a downstream maintainer is a lot larger
> than just producing a runnable binary.  Just some of the high points:
> 
> 1) Do the menu item(s) integrate themselves into the overall tree in
> a way that makes sense given the distro’s overall menu arrangement?

It was the main reason why I begun to use FVWM-Crystal it was a few
years ago. It doesn't care about the files into /etc/xdg which, in most
cases if not all cases, have only a limited support for the freedesktop
additional categories. Instead, it only look for the categories into the
desktop files provided by the applications in /usr/share/applications.

The result is a full support for the additional categories and a menu
that will look the same with any distribution, that out of the box.
Also, it contain a few non in the norm categories for the Audio
category, like Sequencer or Notation, and it have a main Multimedia
category with 3 categories for Audio, AudioVideo and Video.

The last version of yesterday contain a preference editor for its key
modifiers. This is an easy way for fvwm-crystal's bindings to not
collide with software like ardour or emacs.

Dominique
___
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev

Re: [LAD] Releasing source code is not enough, I think...

[Brendan Jones]

On 01/21/2014 01:40 PM, Fons Adriaensen wrote:

On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 05:55:04AM +, 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.


Exactly. "Releasing source code is not enough". Again exactly.

If you want downstream maintainers/packagers to do the hard work in 
producing trusted binaries so that you will never get an email about why 
won't this build again, there's a few things you can do:


 - be a absolutely clear in your licensing. the upstream author of this 
plugin sent me an email and said I can use this code is not good enough


 - don't bundle libraries. It's lazy and its insecure insecure. If 
upstream has a major problem with you - fork it. Look at ntk for an example.


 - become a package maintainer, you are doing all the hard work anyway

kxStudio would be great in Fedora ;)

If people don't know how to find devel packages then they shouldn't be 
compiling software. The fact that the need to is a mistake.


I really recommend that people should really petition their distros 
first before trying to build the latest release themselves. Encourage 
users to file bugs to both distro and/or maintainer. More often than not 
the downstream packager does not even realize a new version exists. I'm 
maintaining >100 Fedora audio packages and it is hard to keep up.


Brendan

___
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev

Re: [LAD] Releasing source code is not enough, I think...

[IOhannes m zmölnig]

On 01/21/2014 07:10 PM, Filipe Coelho wrote:
>> Linux does provide ways to downgrade and to restore from backups.

???
"linux" (as in 'kernel') does not provide anything related to that.
concerning "linux" (as in 'distribution') i can only speak for one:
Debian explicitely does *not* support downgrading. my experience with
ubuntu is small, but i gather that it doesn't even properly support
upgrading.

> tablets are a different ecosystem, we should ignore it here.

different to what?
a considerable amount of computers sold are "tablets" there days.
a considerable amount of tablets are running "linux" these days.
as a matter of fact, i think this entire discussion makes *most* sense
in "tablet world".

gfmadsr
IOhannes




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev

Re: [LAD] Releasing source code is not enough, I think...

[hermann meyer]

Am 24.01.2014 18:31, schrieb IOhannes m zmölnig:

On 01/21/2014 07:10 PM, Filipe Coelho wrote:

Linux does provide ways to downgrade and to restore from backups.

???
"linux" (as in 'kernel') does not provide anything related to that.
concerning "linux" (as in 'distribution') i can only speak for one:
Debian explicitely does *not* support downgrading. my experience with
ubuntu is small, but i gather that it doesn't even properly support
upgrading.


Debian didn't support downgrade, but they provide way's to do it. (dpkg)
Running sid, makes it necessary from time to time to downgrade some 
apps/libs.




tablets are a different ecosystem, we should ignore it here.

different to what?
a considerable amount of computers sold are "tablets" there days.
a considerable amount of tablets are running "linux" these days.
as a matter of fact, i think this entire discussion makes *most* sense
in "tablet world".

gfmadsr
IOhannes



similar projects exist for some time now, and may be go to some nice 
result, when driven carefully. Ignoring "corner-case user" is surly not 
the way to go , see here:

http://0install.net/

Zero Install is a decentralised cross-distribution software 
installation system. Other features include full support for shared 
libraries (with a SAT solver for dependency resolution), sharing 
between users, and integration with native platform package managers. 
It supports both binary and source packages, and works on Linux, Mac 
OS X, Unix and Windows systems. It is fully Open Source.





___
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev

Re: [LAD] Releasing source code is not enough, I think...

[IOhannes m zmölnig]

On 01/25/2014 07:55 AM, hermann meyer wrote:
>>
> 
> Debian didn't support downgrade, but they provide way's to do it. (dpkg)
> Running sid, makes it necessary from time to time to downgrade some
> apps/libs.

if your only requirement for *grading is replacing some files, removing
some others and installing yet another set, then `dpkg` can do this
nicely. (and ubuntu fully inherits the merits of dpkg).

unfortunately, *grading is often more than that.
just think of files created by the application that has to be readable
by another version of the same application.

gamd
IOhannes



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev

Re: [LAD] Releasing source code is not enough, I think...

[Zlobin Nikita]

$ qtractor --version
Qt: 4.8.2
Qtractor: 0.5.11.24
___
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev