[PD-dev] packaging the pddp docs

[Jonathan Wilkes]

--- On Tue, 6/28/11, Hans-Christoph Steiner <hans at at.or.at> wrote:

> From: Hans-Christoph Steiner <hans at at.or.at>
> Subject: Re: [PD-dev] packaging the pddp docs
> To: "Jonathan Wilkes" <jancsika at yahoo.com>
> Cc: pd-dev at iem.at
> Date: Tuesday, June 28, 2011, 6:27 AM
> 
> On Jun 27, 2011, at 6:45 PM, Jonathan Wilkes wrote:
> 
> > 
> > 
> > --- On Mon, 6/27/11, Hans-Christoph Steiner <hans at at.or.at>
> wrote:
> > 
> >> From: Hans-Christoph Steiner <hans at at.or.at>
> >> Subject: [PD-dev] packaging the pddp docs
> >> To: pd-dev at iem.at
> >> Date: Monday, June 27, 2011, 9:21 PM
> >> 
> >> Now that the core Pd docs (i.e. /usr/lib/pd/doc/*)
> are
> >> split out into a
> >> separate Debian package, I think it could make
> sense to
> >> package the PDDP
> >> docs in a kind of mirror or replacement package.
> >> Something like
> >> pddp-doc.  Jonathan, in particular, I was
> thinking
> >> that since you have
> >> wanted to work on all the patches there, we could
> set it up
> >> so the
> >> pddp-doc package mirrors the whole
> /usr/lib/pd/doc*
> >> directory and patch
> >> structure, have this in SVN, git, or whatever
> >> somewhere.  Then people
> >> could choose the pddp-doc package if they so
> choose.
> > 
> > The PDDP docs I did are all for vanilla objects
> (exceptions are
> > expr family, and the other "vanilla" extras).  If
> a new user clicks
> > "Help" on a vanilla object, it should show the revised
> PDDP help
> > patch by default.
> > 
> > So instead of what you propose, please make something
> like a
> > legacy-vanilla-help package.  That way, if
> someone really prefers
> > the old docs, they can still find them, and we won't
> waste new users' time
> > by forcing them to use outdated and unmaintained docs
> (until they figure
> > out they're supposed to download a separate package
> for the current
> > vanilla help patches, which nobody has to do for any
> of the external
> > packages).
> > 
> > -Jonathan
> 
> 
> I agree that the PDDP docs are much better, that's why I
> want to get them out there more.  Part of packaging is
> representing the upstream as it is and letting the user
> decide.  So I think it makes sense to keep puredata-doc
> as what's included in the official tarball.  As for
> Pd-extended, I think it should still use the PDDP docs, so
> like you say, showing the PDDP docs by default.

Ok.

> I
> think that making the PDDP docs as their own package and
> distro will make it easier for you to get your work out to
> users.
> 
> .hc
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 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
> 
> 
>