[Clam-devel] 1.3 release?

Natanael Olaiz nolaiz at gmail.com
Fri Aug 1 15:48:47 PDT 2008

El 08/01/2008 07:29 PM, David García Garzón escribió:
>>>> - Natanael, is faust releasable? are the flags to include them or not
>>>> the proper ones?
>> Now MainWindow checks for USE_LADSPA as flag for Faust support (since
>> Faust code is compiled as LADSPA plugins). Do you want to add a specific
>> USE_FAUST too?
> It depends. The USE_XXXX macros are 'configure' flags that are set normally to 
> disable parts that depends on compilation time on a given library the user 
> may not have installed.
Then is OK. On compilation time it doesn't require anything else than 

> Do i need any library to have faust dependant code compiling? Is it Ladspa, 
> then perfect. Do you need additional libraries installed? then we should add 
> a flag, configuration code and debian build dependencies. Do we need some 
> library but not on compilation but at run time, then let's do the checks on 
> run-time on the availability of such elements, and change debian dependencies 
> or recommends.
It just needs 'faust' as a debian recommended package. Where I could add 
it, just debian/control?

>> About the local path for compile the plugins are  '~/.faust/examples' or
>> '$CLAM_FAUST_PATH/examples'. Needs the original faust examples
>> Makefiles. So I'll add a check for Makefile and the faust binary on path.
> I don't fully understand the point here. But yes, run-time checks are ok and 
> let move dependencies from 'requires' to 'recommends' or 'suggest'.
That is a copy of the examples dir of the faust package, just to have 
the makefile and default sources files to compile them in a 
write-permissions path. (ATM faust doesn't provide so many options to 
compile from others directories).


> [...]

More information about the clam-devel mailing list