On 01/21/2014 01:06 PM, R. Mattes wrote:
On Tue, 21 Jan 2014 12:40:23 +0000, Fons Adriaensen wrote

On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 05:55:04AM +0000, 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).