[PD-dev] deb packages discussion

[Anderson Goulart]

Hello IOhannes,

thanks for your answer...

On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 4:08 AM, IOhannes m zmoelnig <zmoelnig at iem.at>wrote:

> Anderson Goulart wrote:
>
>> Hello all,
>>
>
>  puredata-ext-XX - package containing a single external
>> puredata-abs-XX - package containing a single abstraction
>>
>
> why do you want to separate them?

how does a "single external" differ (substantially) from a "single
> abstraction"? (esp. since .deb takes care of platform-in/dependency)
>
>
Well, this is just an ideia and we can decide to use names like
puredata-xxx, where xxx is the name of external/abstraction. What I want
here is to discuss the conventions about packaging things related to Pd.



> do you really want to distribute a _single_ file with an entire .deb or do
> you rather mean "library"?
>
>
Maybe we can distribute  a "library" if those externals/abstractions are
related. But if they are different, with different upstream authors, with
different dependencies and different funcionalities, I think distribute an
entire .deb is better than put it together in a library.



> how does this integrate into the already existing debian infrastructure for
> Pd? e.g. with naming schemes like "pd-zexy" or "pd-gem" (that is: why do we
> want to reinvent the wheel?)
>
>
I am not a debian developer, but I am sure we can talk to them to upload all
packages to the official repo. The naming conventions are just suggestions
and we can use pd-xxx instead of puredata-xxx. The main idea of this email
is to separate pd-extended into some .deb packages to become more clear and
easier to maintain to many architectures and distribution versions.


bye, global
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.puredata.info/pipermail/pd-dev/attachments/20090921/2173637e/attachment.htm>