ALURE 1.0 Debian packages

[Andres Mejia]

Hello,

Right now I'm working on ALURE packages for Debian. I have a few questions.

The ALURE Homepage says ALURE is licensed under LGPL. Checking the source
however, there is no copyright headers in any of the source files and there's
only the LGPL 2 license in the 'COPYING' file in the top source directory. Did
you mean "LGPL version 2 or (at your option) any later version" like with the
OpenAL Soft license?

Also, the example programs are built by cmake but not installed. Is this
intentional? What I'm doing right now is including the sources for the example
programs as part of the documentation for the ALURE development package.

Also, I see there's an option for building a static library but doesn't allow it
to be built with the shared library. This isn't like OpenAL Soft where there's
no such option and the -DLIBTYPE=STATIC option has to be passed into cmake. For
ALURE, do you have any objections for installing static libraries alongside
shared libraries?

--
Regards,
Andres
_______________________________________________
Openal-devel mailing list
Openal-devel@...
http://opensource.creative.com/mailman/listinfo/openal-devel

[Chris Robinson-5]

On Wednesday 10 June 2009 3:51:57 pm Andres Mejia wrote:
> The ALURE Homepage says ALURE is licensed under LGPL. Checking the source
> however, there is no copyright headers in any of the source files and
> there's only the LGPL 2 license in the 'COPYING' file in the top source
> directory. Did you mean "LGPL version 2 or (at your option) any later
> version" like with the OpenAL Soft license?

Hi. Yes, ALURE's license is intended to be LGPL v2 or later, like OpenAL Soft.
I'll try to add that to the sources (as long as it doesn't mess up Natural
Docs' output), or to a readme.

> Also, the example programs are built by cmake but not installed. Is this
> intentional? What I'm doing right now is including the sources for the
> example programs as part of the documentation for the ALURE development
> package.

I never gave much thought to installing the example programs, as they were
mostly intended as example code showing the simple uses of the lib. They
could, though, I guess be useful for making sure the lib is working.. but I
have to wonder how many sound playing apps a user will need.

> Also, I see there's an option for building a static library but doesn't
> allow it to be built with the shared library. This isn't like OpenAL Soft
> where there's no such option and the -DLIBTYPE=STATIC option has to be
> passed into cmake. For ALURE, do you have any objections for installing
> static libraries alongside shared libraries?

My main reservation with static libraries with ALURE (as opposed to OpenAL) is
that it shares the same name as the shared lib. If you install both
libalure.so and libalure.a, then linking with -lalure will always pick the
shared lib AFAIK. Conversely, libalure.a isn't needed for any pre-compiled
binaries, and since pkg-config isn't flexible enough to "select" between
shared and static, all linking the user does would use the shared lib if it's
there.
_______________________________________________
Openal-devel mailing list
Openal-devel@...
http://opensource.creative.com/mailman/listinfo/openal-devel

[Andres Mejia]

On Wednesday 10 June 2009 22:23:09 Chris Robinson wrote:

> On Wednesday 10 June 2009 3:51:57 pm Andres Mejia wrote:
> > The ALURE Homepage says ALURE is licensed under LGPL. Checking the source
> > however, there is no copyright headers in any of the source files and
> > there's only the LGPL 2 license in the 'COPYING' file in the top source
> > directory. Did you mean "LGPL version 2 or (at your option) any later
> > version" like with the OpenAL Soft license?
>
> Hi. Yes, ALURE's license is intended to be LGPL v2 or later, like OpenAL
> Soft. I'll try to add that to the sources (as long as it doesn't mess up
> Natural Docs' output), or to a readme.

Ok, thanks for the clarification.

> > Also, the example programs are built by cmake but not installed. Is this
> > intentional? What I'm doing right now is including the sources for the
> > example programs as part of the documentation for the ALURE development
> > package.
>
> I never gave much thought to installing the example programs, as they were
> mostly intended as example code showing the simple uses of the lib. They
> could, though, I guess be useful for making sure the lib is working.. but I
> have to wonder how many sound playing apps a user will need.

I'll just include the sample code in the ALURE packages.

> > Also, I see there's an option for building a static library but doesn't
> > allow it to be built with the shared library. This isn't like OpenAL Soft
> > where there's no such option and the -DLIBTYPE=STATIC option has to be
> > passed into cmake. For ALURE, do you have any objections for installing
> > static libraries alongside shared libraries?
>
> My main reservation with static libraries with ALURE (as opposed to OpenAL)
> is that it shares the same name as the shared lib. If you install both
> libalure.so and libalure.a, then linking with -lalure will always pick the
> shared lib AFAIK. Conversely, libalure.a isn't needed for any pre-compiled
> binaries, and since pkg-config isn't flexible enough to "select" between
> shared and static, all linking the user does would use the shared lib if
> it's there.

-lalure would indeed pick the shared lib by default. I will go ahead and provide
a static library for ALURE in Debian as well.

--
Regards,
Andres
_______________________________________________
Openal-devel mailing list
Openal-devel@...
http://opensource.creative.com/mailman/listinfo/openal-devel