My ideas somewhat differ on this, but you guys are doing the work, and it would hardly do for me to be disagreeable. I'm glad to hear that you're working on build scripts--this should improve the situation, and is a step towards packaging later, if you decide it's worthwhile.
Mike On Sep 8, 2:06 pm, Brian Pratt <brian.pr...@insilicos.com> wrote: > Windows actually remains the most important thing to package, if for no > other reason than that's where the converters have to live. And, I think, > if you look at the traffic on the list it's at least half the TPP user base > (that's not very scientific though, I grant you). > > Again, we already do build Boost out of the extern directory, precisely > because, for example, boost 1.39 isn't in any debian package yet. It's less > bother in the end to just build things like boost and expat than it is to > manage dependencies on external packages (and thus maintain a several > different package manager configurations for several different linux > distros). Like you, I'm not up for extra work, and the way we're doing it > now seems to be the laziest available without simply dumping the dependency > management upon the would-be builder. > > We do provide scripts for building on several linux distros, which hopefully > will become increasingly robust as they get more use. They do have to be > able to assume some baseline (like a normally functioning bash shell) but > then so does a package manager. > > I just don't think it's broken, especially given the resources we have. > > Brian > > On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 10:33 AM, Mike Coleman <tutu...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Version 1.39 of Boost isn't in Ubuntu currently, so there's nothing to > > link to that way. I assume you mean doing something like folding > > Boost into the TPP/extern directory and handling Boost as libexpat is > > handled, for example. I'm not completely unsympathetic to this idea, > > but on the whole I'm against this. Having your own local copy means > > supporting your own local copy, which translates into more work (which > > I don't like to do :-). > > > As to whether it's worthwhile to package TPP for Linux, I don't know. > > I've been trying to help out Eliza, who would clearly benefit. I'd > > have probably tried out TPP sooner myself if there had been an easily > > installed Linux package. But are there really a lot of potential > > users, and does the TPP project care about reaching them? I don't > > even know how large the Windows user community is. > > > As to volunteering, it's not out of the question. It'd depend on the > > above (whether it's really worth doing). Also, I think that in order > > to make this work well, we'd really want to separate TPP from its > > dependencies. That is, rather than including expat (for example) in > > the TPP source tree, instead have each version stipulate that it > > depends on version X of expat (or more typically, version X or > > later). I think this would greatly simplify the packaging task. (You > > could still provide an auxilliary tarball of the dependencies for > > Windows users, but Linux users would get them "for free" as part of > > their distribution.) > > > That's my thought. Does it sound radical? > > > Mike > > > On Sep 8, 11:05 am, Matthew Chambers <matthew.chamb...@vanderbilt.edu> > > wrote: > > > If TPP would link to boost statically it wouldn't be an issue. But IIRC > > > there has been a thread on this topic before and it wasn't deemed worth > > > the effort of maintaining...unless you're volunteering? ;) > > > > -Matt > > > > Mike Coleman wrote: > > > > Has there been any thought about packaging up TPP for Ubuntu/Debian > > > > and possibly RedHat/CentOS? > > > > > I went through the exercise of installing it from scratch, following > > > > the directions on the wiki page, and I can imagine that this would be > > > > quite daunting for a non-programmer. > > > > > Just off the top of my head, it looks like the main problem to solve > > > > will be that TPP is tending to rely on bleeding-edge versions of the > > > > Boost libraries. Is there any chance that a change could be made to > > > > stick with versions that are merely reasonably current (and thus > > > > packaged)? (Ubuntu Jaunty has 1.37, for example.) --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "spctools-discuss" group. To post to this group, send email to spctools-discuss@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to spctools-discuss+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/spctools-discuss?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
