I have fixed the owner problems from 5.09 already a while ago.
I am not sure whether I should keep distributing 5.1 with 5.2 because
of the package size (it will almost double). What should we do?

Regards

Victor
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Anthony Kozar" 
To: "Csound Developer list" 
Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2008 5:08 AM
Subject: Re: [Cs-dev] version troubles


> Victor,
>
> Sorry to not see your messages before you built your packages -- email has
> been very slow to arrive this week.
>
> There are two things I am concerned about with the OS X packages. First,
> have you removed or changed your preinstall script for CsoundLib.pkg?  The
> version that you sent to me was deleting the entire CsoundLib.framework
> before the install.  This will make it impossible to have both 5.1 and 5.2
> versions of the framework installed together.
>
> Second, I've noticed that your 5.09 installer (at least on PPC) is still
> overwriting the owner, group, and permissions of a number of system
> directories.  I noticed after installing that these directories (and maybe
> others) were owned by user 502 instead of root:
>
> /usr
> /usr/local
> /System
> /System/Library
> /System/Library/Frameworks
> /System/Library/Frameworks/Python.framework (etc.)
> /Library
> /Library/Documentation
> /Library/Frameworks
> /Library/Frameworks/Csound.framework
> /Applications
>
> The first seven of those (at least on 10.5) should be root:wheel with mode
> 755 permissions.  /Library/Documentation, /Library/Frameworks and its
> contents, and /Applications should be root:admin with mode 775.
>
> I discovered that PackageMaker's "Use recommended permissions" feature
> simply copies permissions from your system, so if your system is wrong, 
> your
> package will be too.  Repairing permissions with your OS X System disk is 
> a
> partial solution to this issue.
>
> The quick solution is to turn off the option in your PackageMaker files 
> that
> says to overwrite the permissions of existing files.  At a minimum, that
> will prevent changing system directories.  Before the next release, I will
> write a script to make sure everything else in the package has the correct
> settings.
>
> I know you don't have a lot of time and have already built the packages, 
> so
> I guess just do what you can (if anything).
>
> Thanks.
>
> Anthony
>
>
> victor wrote on 12/17/08 5:20 PM:
>
>> What was actually happening was that I did not realise the dynamic
>> lib was being built in Versions/5.2. Anyway I sorted it all out. I have
>> the Intel packages (floats and doubles) now.
>>
>> Victor
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Anthony Kozar" 
>> To: "Developer discussions" 
>> Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2008 10:09 PM
>> Subject: Re: [Cs-dev] version troubles
>>
>>
>>> If this is the message that you are seeing, then I think your plugins
>>> weren't actually built with the latest version.h:
>>>
>>> csound->Warning(csound, Str("not loading '%s' (incompatible "
>>> "with this version of Csound
>>> (%d.%d/%d.%d)"),
>>> fname, majorVersion,minorVersion,
>>> CS_APIVERSION,CS_APISUBVER);
>>>
>>>
>>> Anthony
>>>
>>> On Wed, December 17, 2008 6:43 am, Victor Lazzarini wrote:
>>>> I am having trouble now with the csound versioning upgrade. When
>>>> it attempts to load opcodes, it says they are incompatible with
>>>> this version of csound. These are the opcodes I just built.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> SF.Net email is Sponsored by MIX09, March 18-20, 2009 in Las Vegas, 
> Nevada.
> The future of the web can't happen without you.  Join us at MIX09 to help
> pave the way to the Next Web now. Learn more and register at
> http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;208669438;13503038;i?http://2009.visitmix.com/
> _______________________________________________
> Csound-devel mailing list
> Csound-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/csound-devel 


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SF.Net email is Sponsored by MIX09, March 18-20, 2009 in Las Vegas, Nevada.
The future of the web can't happen without you.  Join us at MIX09 to help
pave the way to the Next Web now. Learn more and register at
http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;208669438;13503038;i?http://2009.visitmix.com/
_______________________________________________
Csound-devel mailing list
Csound-devel@lists.sourceforge.net

victor wrote on 12/18/08 3:36 AM:

> I have fixed the owner problems from 5.09 already a while ago.
> I am not sure whether I should keep distributing 5.1 with 5.2 because
> of the package size (it will almost double). What should we do?

Including the old 5.1 framework is the option recommended by Apple.  The
benefits of this approach are potentially significant.  Clients of the 5.1
framework will just continue to work.

However, since we could potentially have many different packagers for many
different versions of OS X over time, it also seems like a burden or
liability to me.  Each time a new person takes on this job or a new version
of OS X becomes the primary target, all old versions of the library might
have to be built too.  They could be built incorrectly or copied incorrectly
from the saved versions.  The packager would have to remember to include
them.  And with the current scheme of putting dependency libraries into
/usr/local/lib, the packager might have to remember to include or build
dependencies for the older version of the framework when they change in the
newest version.  Also, note that the 5.09 framework is technically wrong --
it has the version 5.1 but is actually slightly incompatible.  So, it might
make more sense to include 5.08 as the old version.

If the 5.2 installer does not delete the entire existing framework, it would
be relatively simple for the user to install a 5.1 framework and then a 5.2
framework if desired.  If you are worried about the issue of old plugins
being left in OPCODEDIR, you might modify your preinstall script to delete
just the 5.2/Resources/Opcodes directory or perhaps the entire 5.2
directory.

I am not worried about size (the manual might actually take up more room
than the binaries do).  But I guess I am in favor of not combining them for
the reasons given above.  If you feel differently, I can respect that.  I
could probably include your 5.1 framework built for 10.4 in the 10.5 package
because the biggest issue was the Python extension and there can only be one
of those in the system anyways.  If that seems like a bad idea, I could
build 5.08 for inclusion.

Anthony


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SF.Net email is Sponsored by MIX09, March 18-20, 2009 in Las Vegas, Nevada.
The future of the web can't happen without you.  Join us at MIX09 to help
pave the way to the Next Web now. Learn more and register at
http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;208669438;13503038;i?http://2009.visitmix.com/
_______________________________________________
Csound-devel mailing list
Csound-devel@lists.sourceforge.net

OK, I agree, I have copied the 5.1 version into the framework and
will package it (only in the floats, there is no such version for
doubles). I have removed the manual.

Victor

At 09:14 18/12/2008, you wrote:
>victor wrote on 12/18/08 3:36 AM:
>
> > I have fixed the owner problems from 5.09 already a while ago.
> > I am not sure whether I should keep distributing 5.1 with 5.2 because
> > of the package size (it will almost double). What should we do?
>
>Including the old 5.1 framework is the option recommended by Apple.  The
>benefits of this approach are potentially significant.  Clients of the 5.1
>framework will just continue to work.
>
>However, since we could potentially have many different packagers for many
>different versions of OS X over time, it also seems like a burden or
>liability to me.  Each time a new person takes on this job or a new version
>of OS X becomes the primary target, all old versions of the library might
>have to be built too.  They could be built incorrectly or copied incorrectly
>from the saved versions.  The packager would have to remember to include
>them.  And with the current scheme of putting dependency libraries into
>/usr/local/lib, the packager might have to remember to include or build
>dependencies for the older version of the framework when they change in the
>newest version.  Also, note that the 5.09 framework is technically wrong --
>it has the version 5.1 but is actually slightly incompatible.  So, it might
>make more sense to include 5.08 as the old version.
>
>If the 5.2 installer does not delete the entire existing framework, it would
>be relatively simple for the user to install a 5.1 framework and then a 5.2
>framework if desired.  If you are worried about the issue of old plugins
>being left in OPCODEDIR, you might modify your preinstall script to delete
>just the 5.2/Resources/Opcodes directory or perhaps the entire 5.2
>directory.
>
>I am not worried about size (the manual might actually take up more room
>than the binaries do).  But I guess I am in favor of not combining them for
>the reasons given above.  If you feel differently, I can respect that.  I
>could probably include your 5.1 framework built for 10.4 in the 10.5 package
>because the biggest issue was the Python extension and there can only be one
>of those in the system anyways.  If that seems like a bad idea, I could
>build 5.08 for inclusion.
>
>Anthony
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>SF.Net email is Sponsored by MIX09, March 18-20, 2009 in Las Vegas, Nevada.
>The future of the web can't happen without you.  Join us at MIX09 to help
>pave the way to the Next Web now. Learn more and register at
>http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;208669438;13503038;i?http://2009.visitmix.com/
>_______________________________________________
>Csound-devel mailing list
>Csound-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
>https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/csound-devel

Victor Lazzarini
Music Technology Laboratory
Music Department
National University of Ireland, Maynooth 


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SF.Net email is Sponsored by MIX09, March 18-20, 2009 in Las Vegas, Nevada.
The future of the web can't happen without you.  Join us at MIX09 to help
pave the way to the Next Web now. Learn more and register at
http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;208669438;13503038;i?http://2009.visitmix.com/
_______________________________________________
Csound-devel mailing list
Csound-devel@lists.sourceforge.net