On Mon, Oct 11, 2010 at 03:47:43PM +0200, Robin Gareus wrote: > Well, as outlined below I am suggesting git/svn not as means for > concurrent/team development but for providing a canonical > version-independent URL that can be tracked for each of the projects.
Updates are quite infrequent, and if there's anything really important or new they will be announced on LAD/LAU. It's not like some projects which you could update almost daily. > That's 3 steps to much :) Are Linux users becoming that lazy ? :-) > With git it's also easy to keep more than one repo: fi. a private with > all the small changes and a public where you only push out releases. I don't think that my provider (hosteurope) provides a git server. > As for the 'sudo make install' - I'm quite reluctant to run that > command. I can't help to spot some contradition there. You would not trust 'sudo make install', even if you can verify very easily what it's going to do (just a few lines in the Makefile). But you would trust a single-command, almost automatic update ? This can do whatever it wants with your system, even if going through a managed package, and it's less easy to verify. > Usually a 'make' suffices for testing. For zita-rev1 for example it wouldn't - the application expects some data in $PREFIX/share/zita-rev1/. > The commonly used target (autotools) is "make uninstall" > (not "make remove") But I don't use autotools :-). It's easy to provide both. > I agree programmers should not be concerned about packaging. I was just > suggesting a few trivial changes that'll make live easier for PPL > packaging (either for distros or for their own benefit). If I can make life easier for packagers I will, that's why DESTDIR was added for example. But I can't do anything specific for any distro (or desktop). Ciao, -- FA There are three of them, and Alleline. _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
