Hello Tim,<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 3:07 PM, Tim Jones <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:tjones01@gmail.com">tjones01@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
I've been tweaking a pd-extended Gentoo ebuild for personal use for<br>
the last few weeks. It makes more sense to me to package extensions<br>
etc. (maybe just "addons" more generally) separately.<br>
<br>
Actually I now wonder, why even have pd-extended? It seems that it may<br>
be doing to much of the packagers' work for them. Logically,<br>
pd-extended is only a meta-package (right?) and may best be left to<br>
packagers to implement, so Anderson can do it the way he wants to, I<br>
can do it the way I want to, etc. so as to best accommodate the very<br>
different packaging systems across all distributions.<br>
<br></blockquote><div><br>This is what I think.. pd-extended could be only a meta-package.<br> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
I understand the motivation for pd-extended is to just fork to a<br>
stable version. Is this the only reason? Why not just release stable,<br>
numbered versions of each external?<br>
<br></blockquote><div><br>I don't know, but I don't think is the only reason.. when I talked to Hans he told me that pd-extended was created to join in one place a bunch of externals/abstractions... because many PD users were making good patches and pubilshed them on their blogs, own repos, etc. So it was dificult to users (or new users) to find those patches... so, if you need a PD with many patches, just install pd-extended and you will get it! This is a good idea! I love it, but not the way of making this happen... :D<br>
<br><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
I have not talked to him, but I think the guy that maintains the<br>
pd-overlay has stopped maintaining the pd-extended ebuild but still<br>
maintains pd-devel and individual live svn ebuilds of the externals. I<br>
was tempted to chop up the pd-extended ebuild in a similar fashion,<br>
and number the externals with the pd-extended version, like<br>
zexy-0.41.4 but this seems repulsive to have two different "version<br>
spaces," if you will.<br>
<br>
I may also look at gstreamer for inspiration. They release multiple<br>
plugins in three packages according to stability. gst-plugins-good<br>
-bad and -ugly.<br>
</blockquote><div><br>I really don't think the problem is the version of pd.. as we don't have problems on having different firefox versions depending on your target (stable, testing, unstable)...<br> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
Naturally as someone on a non-Debian system, I would not want to see<br>
it done the Debian-way on the pd-side. I would want to see something<br>
modular and adaptable to any system (which is not unheardof). As I<br>
have said, I like Anderson's idea of pd-zexy pd-pidip distributed as<br>
separate tarballs, but I would leave it to Anderson to carve out his<br>
own puredata-dev from a standard build. (So I guess in the case of the<br>
-dev package I would favor the overwhelmingly conventional over the<br>
modular solution from pd's side.)<br>
<br></blockquote><div><br>Maybe the subject of the thread is misleading... we can distribute or upstream authors can distribute the original source tarballs as other projects do... than I can build a debian package, you can build a gentoo, others can build for redhat, etc.. <br>
<br>And I think this will increase the work, comparable to the actual model.. but we can have more hands now to distribute the work! :D <br><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
Modularity is the magic word for me. I find myself deconstructing the<br>
pd-extended autobuild system in my ebuild.<br>
<br></blockquote><div><br>hehee.. this is what I think.. and started to do to my AMD64 computer... <br> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
Disclaimer: I have written a few ebuilds for personal use and fixed a<br>
few broken ones, but I am otherwise not a terribly experienced writer<br>
of ebuilds. I am not a software engineer and have never released my<br>
own source package. Nor have I even been a Pd user for long. Maybe, I<br>
know nothing.<br>
<br></blockquote><div><br>huahuahaa... you are like me... new user of PD, a good C programmer and junior at debian packaging.. besides that, I am just suggesting the way debian developers think (which is documented at debian policy and package maintainers guide)... I think they are smart enough to tell us that separate things are better than create a monolitic package... I trust on them.. hauha<br>
</div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
p.s., OT: why are so many externals' *-help.pd files copied to both<br>
$objectsdir and $helpdir?? Why copy the same file to two different<br>
places? If absolutely necessary, symlinks would be preferred.<br>
<div><div></div><div class="h5"><br></div></div></blockquote><div><br>I don't know! :D<br><br>Anyone like this idea and can help me to do this work? Or have other suggestions?<br><br><br>bye, global<br></div></div><br>