Hi all,

I modified the Csound4 CVS's copy of Makefile.lnx and commited it.  I
wasn't able to use the binary release so I thought I'd try to compile
the sources but found I had to make some modifications for FLTK.  The
changes were the same ones I mentioned on the main list a couple of
months ago when compiling Csound with Loris opcodes, which were:

-changed FLTKLIB line to:

FLTKLIB = `fltk-config --ldflags` -lstdc++ -lpthread

-added a compilation rule for cpp files:

.cpp.o:
	$(CXX) $(CXXFLAGS) -c $*.cpp -o $*.o	

as without it the cpp files don't get compiled correctly.  

With these changes I was able to compile with:

make -f Makefile.lnx 

without any problems.  I tested the FLTK opcodes with a simple CSD file
without problems.

steven

In the imortal words ..... it worked for me.....

Out of curiosity, what system spec are you using?  Considering that when
I went through compiling csound with loris that other members of the
csound list voiced that they too were having problems using csound
binary releases, I'm under the assumption that they too are using gcc-3
series based linux systems and that you may not.  If so, then perhaps we
can arrange two binary releases for csound, one compiled with gcc 2.96
and one with gcc 3.xx.  (The drivers to my wireless NIC were released
with this distinction, and I've seen other software released in this way
as well.)  

Considering most current releases from the major distributors of Linux
(RedHat, SuSE, Mandrake, etc.) are based on gcc 3.xx, I think we should
make available different releases, or at least make note that the binary
release is for 2.96 and that one should go ahead and compile otherwise. 

That would probably make more sense, as that would distribute the burden
of packaging binary releases to people who actually have different
distributions installed.  This is already happening to some degree, as
Thac's Mandrake RPM repository has a version of Csound, Hans Fugal has a
version in Debian, Planet-CCRMA has a version, etc.  

(Sorry, I think my mind wandered somewhere in writing this, but
hopefully "making Csound more readily available to lay users" as a point
came through.)

thanks,
steven



On Sun, 2003-09-14 at 16:44, John wrote:
> In the imortal words ..... it worked for me.....
> 
> 

> If this is addressed to me, 5 machines are running RedHat 7.3 with
> updated kernel (various models).  On this machine gcc says
> gcc version 2.96 20000731 (Red Hat Linux 7.1 2.96-98)
> another machine says
> gcc version 2.96 20000731 (Red Hat Linux 7.3 2.96-110)
> 
> I assume you are not interested in the W95, W2K and OSX10.1 systems?

Not particularly as I was mostly concerned with Linux systems (2.96,
3.xx), though it is a concern of mine that Csound does run on all of
these platforms (I have redhat 9.0, win2k, and OSX10.1 to test on).  

>  stevenyi> Considering most current releases from the major distributors of Linux
>  stevenyi> (RedHat, SuSE, Mandrake, etc.) are based on gcc 3.xx, I think we should
>  stevenyi> make available different releases, or at least make note that the binary
>  stevenyi> release is for 2.96 and that one should go ahead and compile otherwise. 
> 
> I assumed Linux people would build from source.  Hence the use of
> autoconf and all that mechanism in csound5

Sounds good, but maybe it would be a good idea to label the binaries
that do go up on sourceforge as being compiled with 2.96, just to reduce
any further confusion for those who come to the sourceforge site with
their 3.xx based system.


> When we have a new stable system this is cool.  I am more concerned at
> the lack of progress over this summer, which only has 4 days to run
> (excluding holidays and conferences).

Maybe we should get a status check of things to be done once again so we
can see where Csound5 is what needs to be done.  The last list of things
to be done were posted a while back at:

http://www.csounds.com/developers/codeFreeze.html

Of these issues, CVS is the only one I see finished.  

Right now on Linux, I am able to compile Csound5 from CVS, but not all
of the opcode plugins.  Also, the compilation fails when getting to the
utilities.  I get some errors when compiling on Win2k with Cygwin,
though I haven't tried that in a while so don't remember what happened. 
(will try again tomorrow).

In regards to that list, any thoughts on soundFile libraries?  I've used
libsndfile (http://www.zip.com.au/~erikd/libsndfile/) and found it easy
enough to use and fairly robust in its support of file formats.  It's
also LGPL which makes it a fit license wise with Csound.

steven

>>>>> "stevenyi" == stevenyi   writes:

 stevenyi> Out of curiosity, what system spec are you using?  Considering that when
 stevenyi> I went through compiling csound with loris that other members of the
 stevenyi> csound list voiced that they too were having problems using csound
 stevenyi> binary releases, I'm under the assumption that they too are using gcc-3
 stevenyi> series based linux systems and that you may not.  If so, then perhaps we
 stevenyi> can arrange two binary releases for csound, one compiled with gcc 2.96
 stevenyi> and one with gcc 3.xx.  (The drivers to my wireless NIC were released
 stevenyi> with this distinction, and I've seen other software released in this way
 stevenyi> as well.)  

If this is addressed to me, 5 machines are running RedHat 7.3 with
updated kernel (various models).  On this machine gcc says
gcc version 2.96 20000731 (Red Hat Linux 7.1 2.96-98)
another machine says
gcc version 2.96 20000731 (Red Hat Linux 7.3 2.96-110)

I assume you are not interested in the W95, W2K and OSX10.1 systems?

 stevenyi> Considering most current releases from the major distributors of Linux
 stevenyi> (RedHat, SuSE, Mandrake, etc.) are based on gcc 3.xx, I think we should
 stevenyi> make available different releases, or at least make note that the binary
 stevenyi> release is for 2.96 and that one should go ahead and compile otherwise. 

I assumed Linux people would build from source.  Hence the use of
autoconf and all that mechanism in csound5

 stevenyi> That would probably make more sense, as that would distribute the burden
 stevenyi> of packaging binary releases to people who actually have different
 stevenyi> distributions installed.  This is already happening to some degree, as
 stevenyi> Thac's Mandrake RPM repository has a version of Csound, Hans Fugal has a
 stevenyi> version in Debian, Planet-CCRMA has a version, etc.  

 stevenyi> (Sorry, I think my mind wandered somewhere in writing this, but
 stevenyi> hopefully "making Csound more readily available to lay users" as a point
 stevenyi> came through.)

When we have a new stable system this is cool.  I am more concerned at
the lack of progress over this summer, which only has 4 days to run
(excluding holidays and conferences).

 stevenyi> thanks,
 stevenyi> steven

==John ffitch