[PD-dev] "imports" section of CVS

[David Plans Casal]

On 14 Mar 2006, at 10:42, Frank Barknecht wrote:

>> I don't necessarily agree with that. Perhaps 'imports' isn't the
>> right word, but the fact that a library isn't required to run Pd at
>> all might not be a good enough reason not to include it in an
>> extended build system, especially if it is kept completely apart from
>> the main tree.
>
> But we're not talking about libraries here at all, we're talking about
> complete applications now! Would you consider packaging Pd with
> Firefox, just because a browser is needed to read the manual? I guess
> you wouldn't, and not only because Firefox is a huge application, but
> also because Firefox has a life outside of Pd and because it is useful
> on many other occasions as well and there's nothing Pd-specific about
> Firefox.

Ok point taken.

> That is *exactly* the situation with LADSPA, VST or DSSI plugins: They
> have a seperate life outside of Pd. Pd is just one of a dozen (dssi)
> or many dozens (LADSPA, VST) host applications for these plugins. If
> someone wants binary packages of dssi plugin/apps, then instead of
> putting (and in fact hiding) them in a Pd CVS or in a Pd binary
> installer package, much more is gained by getting involved with the
> dssi-team and help them do proper releases for all supported operating
> systems. But - repeating myself form the umpteenth time - this has
> nothing to do with Pd.

Fine, but I'd like to see what exactly hc wants to put in there,  
because while I see your point, I also see that there is a dependency  
problem which he must solve (and no it's not as big as Firefox), and  
he's pretty much the only person working full time on it, so while  
maintaining sanity, we need to ease the road for him, not throw  
obstacles at him if at all possible.

d

--
David Casal
Researcher, Department of Computing
Goldsmiths College, University of London
Office : +44 020 7078 5151
Mob   : +44 07803 173959