On Thursday 18 February 2010, Orcan Ogetbil wrote: > are 755. I believe that they need to be 644.
They are. That's odd. > 2) Can we add the line > GenericName=Audio and MIDI Sequencer > to data/desktop/rosegarden.desktop ? Yes. > 3) Fedora's rules tell us we need to pass specific flags to the > compiler. However the environment variable CXXFLAGS is being overriden > by the configure script. The only way I could hack this around was to > pass a sed 's|@CXXFLAGS@|%optflags|' to Makefile.in. Can we make this > a bit easier? Yes, although I find this solution questionable. I'm no build system guy, and not really qualified to have an opinion on this, so I'm putting a hold on resolving this issue until Chris Cannam weighs in. Chris, if you please? > 4) Fedora does not allow indirect linking with libraries anymore. If > an application or a library uses symbols from another library, it has > to link to it. Otherwise the compilation fails. I needed to pass the > flags "-lz -lX11 -ldl" to the linker in order to make rosegarden > compile on Fedora. It would be good to have this upstreamed as other > distros may also follow Fedora in this regard. I tested to make sure this change had no apparent impact on Ubuntu, and it didn't. I have no objection to upstreaming this for your convenience. > 5) This one may be very Fedora specific: The font .pfa files are > compiled into the final binary. This is a big NO in Fedora. I had to > patch them out and install them in /usr/share/fonts/rosegarden/. I am > attaching the patch. It is not the most portable patch but I just > wanted to bring this into your attention. Can we add a configure flag > to separate the data files from the binary? This has been something of a contentious issue, and it makes me remember the bad old days when JACK was impossible to get into distros because Paul Davis steadfastly insisted on static linking everything, and would rant about it if you asked him to, or even if you didn't. My take on this is that bundling everything into the binary is clean and easy to maintain, and it doesn't bother me a bit. Being able to run 15 different ./rosegarden without ever installing anything is extremely useful for development, and extremely convenient for users who inevitably wind up compiling some SVN snapshot in between releases, and will want to run it alongside their stable release backup version (which is one of the exciting key benefits of the new Rosegarden). How can we reconcile all of this so everyone wins? Opinions from other developers? Opinions from users? I'm by no means refusing to accommodate this upstream, but it needs some discussion so we can come to an equitable arrangement. > 6) The DSSI and LADSPA plugin paths are wrong on 64 bit systems. I am > attaching a patch to correct the issue. Wrong on 64-bit systems on certain distros. This has come up before, and we didn't see a clear path to resolving the issue in a sufficiently generic way, so we chose to do nothing. This doesn't affect 64-bit Debian/Ubuntu at all, which most developers are using. No distro wars here. I really don't care. All I know is the last time someone offered a patch for this, we debated it, and then did nothing. Any solution is going to have to be agreeable to everyone involved, and this is another contentious issue. Resolution where everyone wins? What are the variables here? > Please ask me questions if I need to make anything clearer. I can > write patches for the other issues (2-4) too if you want me to. Thank > you for your time and for the great software. The new version looks > awesome. I'll be happy to accept patches, and I'll be happy to work with you as much as possible. It's refreshing to see a package maintainer taking these issues upstream and opening this kind of dialog, and I hope you don't get too frustrated with me for not agreeing with all of your suggestions instantaneously. -- D. Michael McIntyre ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Download Intel® Parallel Studio Eval Try the new software tools for yourself. Speed compiling, find bugs proactively, and fine-tune applications for parallel performance. See why Intel Parallel Studio got high marks during beta. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-sw-dev _______________________________________________ Rosegarden-devel mailing list [email protected] - use the link below to unsubscribe https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rosegarden-devel
