21 Jan
2014
21 Jan
'14
2:06 p.m.
On Tue, 21 Jan 2014 12:40:23 +0000, Fons Adriaensen wrote
Again, I think "Linux" stands for "some distributions".
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.
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.
I found that part amusing. Does the OP really claim a toolchain that
can create binaries tha run native on 32bit inteloids as well as on
64 bit AMD/Intel. Will his binary run on my PPC (Mac Mini, great tool
to run Aeolus). Not even speaking of the plentitude of (binary-incompatible)
ARM processors. And do theses binaries magically create MMX/SSE/SSE2 instructions
on thoses CPUs that don't have them? Or are we blessed with binaries with
all optimizations dissabled?
Such a toolchain is either fantastic or ridiculous.
N.B.: I love the idea of "More binaries for small and obscure software, ..."
Yeah - obscure software (from obscure websites?), as a binary blob. Just
double-click to install (and, pleeeease, run it a root :-)
I'm getting old :-/
Cheers, RalfD
On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 05:55:04AM +0000, Filipe
Coelho wrote:
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.
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(a)lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
--
R. Mattes -
Hochschule fuer Musik Freiburg
rm(a)inm.mh-freiburg.de