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
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
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
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"
But I don't use autotools :-). It's easy to provide both.
> I agree programmers should not be concerned about packaging. I was just
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).
There are three of them, and Alleline.
Linux-audio-dev mailing list