On Tue, Jan 10, 2023 at 08:32:19PM +0100, Jan Stary wrote: > On Jan 10 20:11:54, t...@theobuehler.org wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 10, 2023 at 08:03:49PM +0100, Jan Stary wrote: > > > I am working on an update of libsndfile to 1.2.0. > > > > > > Sadly, I was not around for the 1.1.0 update (thank you Brad), > > > when apparently the decision was made to switch to the cmake build. > > > Is there a particular reason for that? > > > > > > Under https://github.com/libsndfile/libsndfile/releases > > > they provide a tar.gz (as just a tag really) without ./configure, > > > so to use that is to pull in autoreconf and automake etc. However, > > > there is also a tar.xz which provides ./configure; I propose to switch > > > back to the gnu ./configure build, considering the archivers/xzcat > > > dependency a lesser evil than the cmake dependency. > > > > > > Are there any advantages to the cmake build? > > > > I don't think there is a disadvantage to it. It's already done. > > > > -GH_TAGNAME= 1.1.0 > > +GH_TAGNAME= 1.2.0 > > > > make makesum > > make FETCH_PACKAGES= > > Yes, I have that already; but I would like to get rid > of the cmake dependency, and the python dependency.
Then I suggest that you finish that up, submit the update get that committed, then you can play with switching to autoconf and send a diff for that.
