[L2Ork-dev] [PD] Upcoming pd-l2ork release teaser

Ivica Ico Bukvic ico.bukvic at gmail.com
Tue Sep 10 00:53:51 UTC 2013

On 09/09/2013 08:10 AM, Albert Graef wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 8, 2013 at 10:43 PM, Ivica Ico Bukvic <ico.bukvic at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Forgot to follow-up regarding the Gem library. What is exactly the problem?
>> Do you know how the vanilla package looks like? In other words, where
>> exactly is the discrepancy?
> You can see that if you compare the attached file lists.
> gem-filelist.txt shows the include files from a plain ./autogen.sh &&
> ./configure && make && make install using the latest Git sources of
> Gem. l2ork-filelist.txt are the include files in the tarball created
> with tar_em_up.sh -F (the same files are also in the Debian package).
> As you can see, the vanilla Gem installation has the full set of
> directories include/Gem/Base, include/Gem/Gem, etc., while the
> pd-l2ork package only includes a lone include/Base directory, so
> there's certainly something wrong there.
> I'm wondering if the Gem headers should be included at all; I wouldn't
> expect the average pd-l2ork user to roll his/her own Gem plugins, or
> whatever you can use these headers for. But if you prefer to include
> those headers then it should be the complete set, right?

What about debian installer? Is that one ok?

> Albert
> _______________________________________________
> L2Ork-dev mailing list
> L2Ork-dev at disis.music.vt.edu
> http://disis.music.vt.edu/listinfo/l2ork-dev

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://disis.music.vt.edu/pipermail/l2ork-dev/attachments/20130909/65c4a977/attachment.html>

More information about the L2Ork-dev mailing list