csound vs olpcsound

Andres Cabrera mantaraya36 at gmail.com
Wed Mar 25 08:11:39 EDT 2009


Hi,

Bear in mind that in Csound 5.09 the csound API was bumped (from 5.1
to 5.2), and 5.09 onwards are binary incompatible with the previous
5.XX releases. I think it would be better to get 5.10 in, as the
changes in the API shouldn't require any changes to applications that
depend on the Csound API.

(Actually 5.09 is somewhat of a bad release for development as the API
is already binary incompatible, but the API version was not changed).

Cheers,
Andrés

On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 6:45 AM, Peter Robinson <pbrobinson at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Victor,
>
> Thanks for the update, its very useful. I'll have a look at it next
> week. Where can I find the 5.07 spec you mention. I'll have a look at
> getting it up to 5.08 as a starter and see if I can't push the Tcl/Tk
> plugins into a subpackage but according to this sugarlabs page the
> 0.84 release will work with either 5.08 and 5.10. It would require a
> rebuild for the associated apps though.
>
> http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Development_Team/Sugar_Platform/0.84
>
> Cheers,
> Pete
>
> On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 11:35 AM,  <Victor.Lazzarini at nuim.ie> wrote:
>> Basically all the Tcl/Tk stuff, some spectral processing
>> plugin opcodes and other more heavy-processing plugins,
>> portmidi and portaudio-based IO modules,
>> the ALSA-based IO is made to be the default IO module.
>> However, if  the spec file for Csound 5.07 is used as a basis for
>> an updated csound package, I think
>> it's possible to make a csound5 package very lean, as many
>> dependencies are moved to individual rpms, which can be
>> left out of the installation (so olpcsound becomes almost
>> obsolete).
>> That way fedora can have a fully update full csound 5 package,
>> and sugar can use only the rpms that it requires.
>> The only slight complication, if we are moving to 5.10 (latest) is
>> that the csound library had a SONAME bump (5.2 now). I am not
>> sure how that will affect packages. The last 'stable' version of
>> libcsound5.1 was released in 5.08. So it might be worth building
>> a csound5.08 set of rpms, based on csound5.07 spec and then
>> doing a csound5.10 later, as an upgrade. If sugar adopts 5.10,
>> applications (ie TAMTAM) will need to be re-built and linked
>> against it.
>> If a move away from olpcsound is required, I would suggest taking
>> the spec of 5.07, which, to me, seems the most correct. If we
>> are upgrading olpcsound to 5.10, then we need to rebuild all
>> packages that depend on it before shipping.
>> In any case, please feel free to ask any questions and seek any
>> help you need from me (not sure you know, but I am also one
>> of upstream developers, so I might be able to help with integrating
>> patches to future releases, etc.)
>> Regards
>> Victor
>>
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: Peter Robinson <pbrobinson at gmail.com>
>> Date: Wednesday, March 25, 2009 11:17 am
>> Subject: Re: csound vs olpcsound
>> To: Victor.Lazzarini at nuim.ie
>> Cc: OLPC Developer's List <devel at lists.laptop.org>
>>
>>> Hi Victor,
>>>
>>> Thanks for the clarification. Yes, I was aware that csound in Fedora
>>> is 5.03. My query was based on getting Fedora up to the latest version
>>> (so if we needed olpcsound if fedora had >= 5.08). I'm going to follow
>>> this up to see where I can get. As a side note, do you know what the
>>> removed deps were?
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Peter
>>>
>>> On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 11:14 AM,
>>> <Victor.Lazzarini at nuim.ie> wrote:
>>> > Very strange, but olpcsound is based on csound 5.08. As far as
>>> I know there
>>> > is no
>>> > fedora package for csound 5.08 or 5.10. If there is, it should
>>> be no
>>> > problem moving from olpcsound to csound. I would not like to
>>> > move from olpcsound to csound 5.03, though.
>>> > olpcsound is not a fork, it is based on the same sources as
>>> Csound5, with
>>> > less components and dependencies. It is just a build option
>>> (for scons).
>>> >
>>> > Victor
>>> > ----- Original Message -----
>>> > From: Peter Robinson <pbrobinson at gmail.com>
>>> > Date: Wednesday, March 25, 2009 10:12 am
>>> > Subject: csound vs olpcsound
>>> > To: OLPC Developer's List <devel at lists.laptop.org>
>>> >
>>> >> Hi All,
>>> >>
>>> >> I know that olpcsound was originally a fork of csound for
>>> olpc. I
>>> >> noticed just now on the sugarlabs page for the 0.84 release
>>> [1] that
>>> >> it depends on csound 5.08/5.10 and makes no mention of
>>> >> olpcsound. Does
>>> >> that mean that olpcsound is now obsolete and that once we get
>>> csound>> in Fedora upgraded to a remotely recent version that
>>> olpcsound can
>>> >> just disappear?
>>> >>
>>> >> Cheers,
>>> >> Peter
>>> >>
>>> >> [1]
>>> http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Development_Team/Sugar_Platform/0.84>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> >> Devel mailing list
>>> >> Devel at lists.laptop.org
>>> >> http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
>>> >
>>> > Dr Victor Lazzarini, Senior Lecturer, Dept. of Music,National
>>> University of
>>> > Ireland, Maynooth
>>> >
>>> >
>>
>> Dr Victor Lazzarini, Senior Lecturer, Dept. of Music,National University of
>> Ireland, Maynooth
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Devel mailing list
> Devel at lists.laptop.org
> http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
>



-- 


Andrés


More information about the Devel mailing list