I have made good progress towards a new build system for csound5, but I
have a big question before I finish it and commit it.

Shall we use ONLY libsndfile for soundfiles, PortAudio for audio, PortMidi
for MIDI, FLTK for windowing, and so on? Or must we keep the old drivers
going also in order to support additional platforms?

I need to know the answer to this soon, so please speak up! Lack of
feedback may result in changes not to everyone's liking.

My preference is to keep Csound 5 simple, and support only the above
solutions, with the possible addition of plugin drivers that can replace
the default driver for certain uses or platforms. I think all the defaults
suggested would work on Windows, Linux, and Mac OS X.

But I know how to incorporate the older drivers - this is a question of
simplicity, not a question of difficulty.

The new build system uses GNU autotools. It uses one configure.ac and one
Makefile.am in the top-level directory - no recursive Makefiles. The
configure.ac is based on John Ramsdell's version, which sets up
conditionals for platforms, libraries, and drivers. The Makefile.am is
completely from scratch and much simpler (and, I hope, easier to
understand) than any of the existing build systems.










--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .

On Sat, 17 Jan 2004, gogins@pipeline.com wrote:

> I have made good progress towards a new build system for csound5, but I
> have a big question before I finish it and commit it.
> 
> Shall we use ONLY libsndfile for soundfiles, PortAudio for audio, PortMidi
> for MIDI, FLTK for windowing, and so on? Or must we keep the old drivers
> going also in order to support additional platforms?

I was going to ask a similar question.  I know Michael is in favour of 
libsndfile and talking to Richard Dobson last week he is rather so 
inclined.  I would really like a decision on this so i can complete the 
libsndfile stuff and feel I am not wasting what little time there is.  I 
have not really spent the time on the alternatives.  I have been very 
pleased with Erik de Castro Lupo's responses to my questions.

Portaudio and portmidi -- yes certainly

> 
> I need to know the answer to this soon, so please speak up! Lack of
> feedback may result in changes not to everyone's liking.

I would say yes unless someone can think of an objection
> 
> My preference is to keep Csound 5 simple, and support only the above
> solutions, with the possible addition of plugin drivers that can replace
> the default driver for certain uses or platforms. I think all the defaults
> suggested would work on Windows, Linux, and Mac OS X.
> 

That was always the intent.

> But I know how to incorporate the older drivers - this is a question of
> simplicity, not a question of difficulty.
> 
> The new build system uses GNU autotools. It uses one configure.ac and one
> Makefile.am in the top-level directory - no recursive Makefiles. The
> configure.ac is based on John Ramsdell's version, which sets up
> conditionals for platforms, libraries, and drivers. The Makefile.am is
> completely from scratch and much simpler (and, I hope, easier to
> understand) than any of the existing build systems.
> 

I hope it actually works unlike the csound4 state at present :-)

==John ff

Hi John and Michael,

For whatever my opinion might be worth, I'm in favor of and support what
you all have just mentioned.  These libraries are all seem pretty well
tested/debugged and I see no real disadvantages to committing to them.

Thanks,
steven



On Sat, 2004-01-17 at 15:16, John ffitch wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Jan 2004, gogins@pipeline.com wrote:
> 
> > I have made good progress towards a new build system for csound5, but I
> > have a big question before I finish it and commit it.
> > 
> > Shall we use ONLY libsndfile for soundfiles, PortAudio for audio, PortMidi
> > for MIDI, FLTK for windowing, and so on? Or must we keep the old drivers
> > going also in order to support additional platforms?
> 
> I was going to ask a similar question.  I know Michael is in favour of 
> libsndfile and talking to Richard Dobson last week he is rather so 
> inclined.  I would really like a decision on this so i can complete the 
> libsndfile stuff and feel I am not wasting what little time there is.  I 
> have not really spent the time on the alternatives.  I have been very 
> pleased with Erik de Castro Lupo's responses to my questions.
> 
> Portaudio and portmidi -- yes certainly
> 
> > 
> > I need to know the answer to this soon, so please speak up! Lack of
> > feedback may result in changes not to everyone's liking.
> 
> I would say yes unless someone can think of an objection
> > 
> > My preference is to keep Csound 5 simple, and support only the above
> > solutions, with the possible addition of plugin drivers that can replace
> > the default driver for certain uses or platforms. I think all the defaults
> > suggested would work on Windows, Linux, and Mac OS X.
> > 
> 
> That was always the intent.
> 
> > But I know how to incorporate the older drivers - this is a question of
> > simplicity, not a question of difficulty.
> > 
> > The new build system uses GNU autotools. It uses one configure.ac and one
> > Makefile.am in the top-level directory - no recursive Makefiles. The
> > configure.ac is based on John Ramsdell's version, which sets up
> > conditionals for platforms, libraries, and drivers. The Makefile.am is
> > completely from scratch and much simpler (and, I hope, easier to
> > understand) than any of the existing build systems.
> > 
> 
> I hope it actually works unlike the csound4 state at present :-)
> 
> ==John ff
> 
>