[Ardour-Users] Ardour 2.8 released

[Paul Davis]

On Sat, Mar 28, 2009 at 10:33 PM, Kevin Cosgrove <kevinc at cosgroves.us> wrote:
>
> On 28 March 2009 at 18:39, Paul Davis <paul at linuxaudiosystems.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Mar 28, 2009 at 3:55 PM, Fernando Lopez-Lezcano
>> <nando at ccrma.stanford.edu> wrote:
>>
>> > My suggestion (from the packager point of view) would be to make it
>> > possible to do two successive builds of ardour on the same source tree,
>> > one with vst enabled and one without it (with maybe a scons clean in
>> > between?). Files generated should not conflict in naming. A scons
>> > install after that should install both versions in the same DESTDIR.
>>
>> that seems pretty hard ... you want to build twice (possibly with a
>> clean between) and then have the install step install the results of
>> both builds?
>
> I've seen packages like that.  I think vim is one like that.
> But, I might not remember vim correctly.  If it works out best
> from a packaging perspective, then I would have no problem with
> that.  I've built a lot of RPM packages, hundreds.  Most of the
> time this isn't needed.  It's build-time config changes that
> usually drive this, and that's what ardour-vst is facing.

how about this:

if you run scons VST=1, it first checks to see that everything is
already built. if not, it tells you to run with VST=0. if so, it
proceeds to build the two new components (libardourgtk and the win32
executable). at the end of the process, scons install will install the
whole enchilada. there will be 2 new libraries (libardourgtk and
libardourvst) and 2 new bin-located files, the ardourvst shell script
and the win32 executable.

sound ok? this is risky in theory because if VST_SUPPORT ever gets
used outside the gtk2_ardour and libs/ardour directories, the build
will be corrupt, but at present these are the only places where it
matters.

--p