[PD-dev] adding standard install paths to the 'puredata' package

Hans-Christoph Steiner hans at at.or.at
Wed Dec 2 06:46:15 CET 2009

On Dec 1, 2009, at 5:04 AM, Frank Barknecht wrote:

> Hallo,
> 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
> /usr/share/vim.
> 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
> in pure:dyne?

The pure:dyne developers have been very quiet  on this topic.  I've  
been posting here in the hopes that they would join in the  
conversation.  pd-dev seems like a natural place for this  
conversation, no?



Mistrust authority - promote decentralization.  - the hacker ethic

More information about the Pd-dev mailing list