[PD] Fwd: Re: enhance pd-extended with pd-l2ork featues ?

[Charles Goyard]

(also forgot to send to the list)

Hi,

> 1. Why are you compiling gem separately when pd-l2ork compiles it for
> you
> and includes it with its binary package?
>
> 2. Why are you trying to use pd-vanilla includes with pd-l2ork (unless
> you
> are using pd instead of pd-l2ork)? The two are not compatible and as I
> indicated on the site with a huge warning box mixing the two will
> cause
> crashes and unexpected behavior.

I use pd-vanilla or pd-extended depending on the project I work
on. Since l2ork seems super robust, I'd like to give it a try.

For this particular case, the idea was to test whever plain Gem fails to
install the .so files or not. So I build it with vanilla as a general
testcase. I don't mean to use this build on l2ork or extended.

While I'm typing, my computer is building a fresh copy of pd-l2ork with
PKGBUILD to see if everything is ok. Also I will take this as a
occasion to see what files are in conflict with extended. It seems it's
just cyclist, pdsend and pdreceive. So maybe just by renaming these it's
possible to have pd-vanilla, pd-extended and pd-l2ork installed in /usr
on the same system (how I do that at the moment is have all flavors in
/opt/pd-<flavor>).


I hope this makes my intentions clearer.

--
Charles