[PD-dev] [ pure-data-Patches-2746054 ] hard-code default user-install paths

[Hans-Christoph Steiner]

On Apr 13, 2009, at 4:31 PM, IOhannes m zmölnig wrote:

> Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
>> On Apr 9, 2009, at 6:21 AM, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:
>>> shouldn't it be a folder "Pd" as well? (to avoid confusion)
>>>
>> There was extensive discussion on this topic in the past, and there  
>> was agreement on ~/pd-externals/.  Check the archive for details.
>
>
> the topic mainlyy focused on ~/.pd vs ~/pd and i follow all the  
> arguments back then.
> however, what i really wanted to ask (and what i actually did ask; i  
> only eventually got caught by ~/.pd and wrote a bit too lengthy on  
> that...; however i did mention that it had been discussed  
> before :-)) is why both w32 and osx have a .../Pd folder whereas on  
> linux it is .../pd-externals.
> why is it not ~/pd ?
>
> re-reading the entire thread from back then does not kindle the  
> impression that any agreement was made for "~/pd-externals" (though  
> there was agreement not to hide the directory)

At this point I don't remember the why, and I can't seem to find the  
answer in the archives.  Pd-extended 0.40.3 has it set this way, so it  
would be nice to not have to change it.

I think I remember something about people worried about confusion  
between /usr/lib/pd, /usr/local/lib/pd, etc and this folder.  'pd- 
externals' makes it clear that it is not the same as /usr/local/lib/ 
pd, etc.  This folder only really exists on GNU/Linux, so it only  
needs to be 'pd-externals' on GNU/Linux.

.hc