22 Dec
2015
22 Dec
'15
2:01 p.m.
On Tue, 22 Dec 2015 13:27:43 +0100, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
On Tue, 22 Dec 2015 12:50:04 +0100, Raffaele Morelli
wrote:
Another thing to consider.
Assumed upstream mentions that "jackd2" is required to compile the
software.
On some distro you just need to have jack2 installed, e.g.
https://www.archlinux.org/packages/community/x86_64/jack2/files/
On other distros the software is split to packages, e.g.
http://packages.ubuntu.com/wily/amd64/jackd2/filelist
some other jackd packages are hard dependencies, that are automatically
installed, but non does provide the headers, they are provided by a
package you manually need to install or that require using a tool to
automatically install the headers, auto-apt, apt-get build-dep ...
http://packages.ubuntu.com/wily/amd64/libjack-jackd2-dev/filelist
So some users might consider this as less user-friendly.
Upstream unlikely will mention that you need libjack-jackd2-dev.
I do not rate the different approaches, I just inform that the OP
perhaps should consider what for the OP is more user-friendly.
Regards,
Ralf
On 22/12/15 at 12:24pm, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
That's why in this context (compiling from upstream) using command line
is more user-friendly when not using a LTS release. On Tue, 22 Dec 2015 11:39:32 +0100, Raffaele
Morelli wrote:
AGain, you are completely missing the "long term support" thing and
mixing apples and oranges, LTS are freezed in terms of new features
upgrades. On the opposite a non LTS release is not freezed so
dependencies are kept up-to-date. On 22/12/15 at 10:56am, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Dec 2015 08:31:58 +0100, Raffaele Morelli wrote:
> >"commandline friendly" is totally meaningless
>
> No it isn't, depending to the user's needs, the kind of used
> distro has impact. If a user e.g. wants to use command line
> mainly to compile software that isn't availbale by the
> repositories for the packages, then it makes a difference if a
> user e.g. chose a long term support release distro or a distro
> that often provide releases or a rolling release.
>
Distro are not "long term release", as the phrase says, releases
are long term support or not.
Releases and distros have nothing to do with the whole point at
all, apples and oranges. Repost can be added and source code is
available, if someone can't manage with repos and source code the
problem is not the cli he is going to use... but the user itself.
You can happily use bash, zsh, korn or whatever shell you like on
your distro and compiling has nothing to do with the one you
choose.
Please care about the OP's request.
Users could run into dependency hell when compiling from
up-to-date upstream sources, if the distro is meant to provide a
steady work-flow by a long term support release. An Ubuntu LTS, let
alone special business distros, do not provide up-to-date libraries.
If the main reason to use command line is to compile software, then
it's wise to chose a distro that is close to upstream. This is just
one example why "command line friendly" isn't a bad phrase, if you
care about a context.