[PD-dev] deb packages discussion

[Hans-Christoph Steiner]

Hey Anderson,

Its good timing for bringing these up, Günter has stopped maintaining  
his official Debian packages, so they are officially orphaned right  
now.  Anyone here a Debian Developer?  I am starting the process of  
becoming a Debian Developer (and I'll be helping to run DebCof 2010 in  
NYC next summer).   We could start a Pd group for packaging all this  
stuff.

I think that the 'puredata' and pure:dyne packages would be the best  
place to start, then they just need to be tailored to be more Debian- 
proper (i.e. moving all non-libs out of /usr/lib/pd, etc.) and work  
with the 'pd' virtual package. I

Plus dmotd, IOhannes, me and others are working on rewriting build  
system so it should be easier to package the libraries individually.

.hc

On Sep 21, 2009, at 8:43 AM, Anderson Goulart wrote:

> 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
> _______________________________________________
> Pd-dev mailing list
> Pd-dev at iem.at
> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev



----------------------------------------------------------------------------

As we enjoy great advantages from inventions of others, we should be  
glad of an opportunity to serve others by any invention of ours; and  
this we should do freely and generously.         - Benjamin Franklin


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.puredata.info/pipermail/pd-dev/attachments/20090921/366787fc/attachment.htm>