On Tue, 22 Dec 2015 13:27:43 +0100, Ralf Mardorf wrote: >On Tue, 22 Dec 2015 12:50:04 +0100, Raffaele Morelli wrote: >>On 22/12/15 at 12:24pm, Ralf Mardorf wrote: >>> On Tue, 22 Dec 2015 11:39:32 +0100, Raffaele Morelli wrote: >>> >On 22/12/15 at 10:56am, Ralf Mardorf wrote: >>> >> On Tue, 22 Dec 2015 08:31:58 +0100, Raffaele Morelli wrote: >>> >> >"commandline friendly" is totally meaningless >>> >> >>> >> No it isn't, depending to the user's needs, the kind of used >>> >> distro has impact. If a user e.g. wants to use command line >>> >> mainly to compile software that isn't availbale by the >>> >> repositories for the packages, then it makes a difference if a >>> >> user e.g. chose a long term support release distro or a distro >>> >> that often provide releases or a rolling release. >>> >> >>> > >>> >Distro are not "long term release", as the phrase says, releases >>> >are long term support or not. >>> >Releases and distros have nothing to do with the whole point at >>> >all, apples and oranges. Repost can be added and source code is >>> >available, if someone can't manage with repos and source code the >>> >problem is not the cli he is going to use... but the user itself. >>> > >>> >You can happily use bash, zsh, korn or whatever shell you like on >>> >your distro and compiling has nothing to do with the one you >>> >choose. >>> >>> Please care about the OP's request. >>> >>> Users could run into dependency hell when compiling from >>> up-to-date upstream sources, if the distro is meant to provide a >>> steady work-flow by a long term support release. An Ubuntu LTS, let >>> alone special business distros, do not provide up-to-date libraries. >>> If the main reason to use command line is to compile software, then >>> it's wise to chose a distro that is close to upstream. This is just >>> one example why "command line friendly" isn't a bad phrase, if you >>> care about a context. >>> >>AGain, you are completely missing the "long term support" thing and >>mixing apples and oranges, LTS are freezed in terms of new features >>upgrades. On the opposite a non LTS release is not freezed so >>dependencies are kept up-to-date. > >That's why in this context (compiling from upstream) using command line >is more user-friendly when not using a LTS release. Another thing to consider. Assumed upstream mentions that "jackd2" is required to compile the software. On some distro you just need to have jack2 installed, e.g. https://www.archlinux.org/packages/community/x86_64/jack2/files/ On other distros the software is split to packages, e.g. http://packages.ubuntu.com/wily/amd64/jackd2/filelist some other jackd packages are hard dependencies, that are automatically installed, but non does provide the headers, they are provided by a package you manually need to install or that require using a tool to automatically install the headers, auto-apt, apt-get build-dep ... http://packages.ubuntu.com/wily/amd64/libjack-jackd2-dev/filelist So some users might consider this as less user-friendly. Upstream unlikely will mention that you need libjack-jackd2-dev. I do not rate the different approaches, I just inform that the OP perhaps should consider what for the OP is more user-friendly. Regards, Ralf _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-user mailing list Linux-audio-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
