[PD-dev] adding standard install paths to the 'puredata' package
fbar at footils.org
Tue Dec 1 11:04:14 CET 2009
IOhannes m zmoelnig hat gesagt: // IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:
> however, i don't see a really compelling reason why things should be
> moved from /usr/lib/pd to /usr/lib/puredata.
> it might be sufficient to symlink from /u/l/puredata to /u/l/pd for now.
> or the other way round.
> /usr/lib/pd should be kept.
AFAIK not even the Debian policy requires the "lib"-directory name to be the
same as the package name. It sometimes talks about "preferably" choosing the
package name for certain directory names in /etc/ /usr/share or /usr/lib, but I
found no mentioning of "required". X11, vim, emacs are examples, where the
directory-name is not the same as the package name. There is no "X11" package,
the "emacs" package is an empty meta package and the "vim" package is just one
of many vims available in Debian - and the one, that does *not* include
To my knowledge the policy isn't violated - but I'm no Debian maintainer in
training, so I may be wrong. But still the current package has no open bug
about this, the pure:dyne packages use "pd" as well. Btw: What about these
packages? Weren't the p:d maintainers planning to incorporate their packages
into Debian proper as well? Is there cooperation between HCS' efforts and those
More information about the Pd-dev