[PD-dev] Re: pure data external debian packets

Hans-Christoph Steiner hans at eds.org
Mon Aug 25 23:48:38 CEST 2003

On Thursday, Aug 21, 2003, at 04:25 America/New_York, guenter geiger 

> On Wed, 20 Aug 2003, Pablo wrote:
>> hi Guenter!
>> I wrote to Yves to find more about putting his externals into cvs and 
>> about
>> compiling pidip w/o support for liblame.
>> About having one or several source packages i'm not very sure.. it's
>> clear we need that for small externals, but for the big ones it could 
>> be
>> a bit annoying, also i don't like the versioning scheme you are 
>> using...
>> for example your debian package for pdp has version 00.20030718-5 
>> while
>> it'd be much nicer if it said 0.9 as that's the version for pdp.
> Exactly. Thats why I want the big packages that do "something else" as
> separate source packages, thats the only way to do proper versioning.
> The plan is to have one "pd-externals" package, which will hold all
> the small externals, and make additional modules for the others.
> currently this would be:
> - pdp
> - flext (together with the externals written with flext)
> - zexy
> - cyclone
> - unauthorized (just saw that they are in there)
> The best would be to move all the other deeper into the hierarchy:
> externals\
>     \externals
>     \flext\.. (with footils ..)
>     \pdp (with pidip .. ?)
>     \miXed
>     \unauthorized
>     \zexy

I would support this structure as long as all of the dependencies are 
sure to work on all of the various debian platforms.  I think that the 
original idea makes sense when considering all of the platforms that 
Debian runs on (having pd-externals be a package of all externals that 
don't have dependencies beyond libc, and other externals with more 
dependencies would be grouped into other packages).  Otherwise, someone 
on a less popular platform could be prevented from easily using all of 
the externals if one dep is missing.


More information about the Pd-dev mailing list