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(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Christopher,
On following the instructions I get...
[root@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(a)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(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/music