[Fedora-music-list] Is compiling for source the only way to still get Ardour 3 on Fedora 19?

[Sean Beeson]

OK, sorry. I neglected to install the boost-devel package. I have done that
now and the /waf configure worked, so the actual compilation should as also
work. It's about 1/4 of the way done. I will report back...

Sean


On Sat, Oct 12, 2013 at 12:19 AM, Sean Beeson <seanbeeson at gmail.com> wrote:

> Christopher,
>
> On following the instructions I get...
>
> [root at localhost 3.4]# ./waf configure
> Setting top to                           : /opt/ardour/3.4
> Setting out to                           : /opt/ardour/3.4/build
> Checking for 'gcc' (c compiler)          : /usr/bin/gcc
> Checking for 'g++' (c++ compiler)        : /usr/bin/g++
>
> Global Configuration
>  * Install prefix                                    : /usr/local
>  * Debuggable build                                  : True
>  * Build documentation                               : False
>
> Ardour Configuration
>  * Will build against private GTK dependency stack   : no
>  * Will rely on libintl built into libc              : yes
>  * Will build against private Ardour dependency stack : no
> Checking for boost library >= 1.39                   : too old
> Please install boost version 1.39 or higher.
> The configuration failed
> (complete log in /opt/ardour/3.4/build/config.log)
>
> I have boost 1.53 installed, so I am not sure at this point what to try. I
> am building this on a F19 x86_64.
>
> Sean
>
>
> On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 5:29 AM, Christopher R. Antila <
> crantila at fedoraproject.org> wrote:
>
>> On 09/11/2013 12:42 PM, Sean Beeson wrote:
>> > Is compiling for source the only way to still get Ardour 3 on Fedora 19?
>> >
>> > If so, does anyone have any good how to on dealing with the
>> dependencies?
>>
>> Hi Sean:
>>
>> With little effort, I found these instructions for Ardour 3.1:
>> https://blogs.fsfe.org/samtuke/?p=548
>>
>> Please let us know whether they still work.
>>
>> However, I feel we should start a discussion on what to do about Ardour,
>> now that they have asked distributions not to package their software.
>> This is actually a serious ethical dilemma.
>>
>> Possible Options Include:
>>
>> 1.) Package Ardour 3 against the developers' wishes, making no
>> additional changes.
>>
>> 2.) Package Ardour 3 against the developers' wishes, making some change
>> that encourages donating money to the project.
>>
>> 3.) Continue to package Ardour 2, accepting responsibility for
>> maintaining software that's abandoned by the upstream developers.
>>
>> 4.) Drop Ardour from the distribution, since we do not wish to maintain
>> the Ardour 2.8.x series or package the Ardour 3.x series against the
>> developers' wishes.
>>
>> 5.) ?
>>
>> I favour the first or second options, since the free software audio
>> community is so small that we can't afford the added difficulty of using
>> such an important piece of software. On the other hand, the free
>> software audio community is so small that we can't afford creating a
>> rift with the Ardour developers. If we choose one of these options, we
>> should be sure to involve the developers in our decision-making process.
>>
>> If the SIG wishes, I would be happy to research the state of Ardour in
>> other distributions.
>>
>>
>> Christopher
>> _______________________________________________
>> music mailing list
>> music at lists.fedoraproject.org
>> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/music
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/music/attachments/20131012/c4542d46/attachment-0001.html>