[PD-dev] packaging the pddp docs

[Hans-Christoph Steiner]

On Jun 28, 2011, at 12:51 PM, Jonathan Wilkes wrote:

>
>
> --- 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, 6:33 PM
>>
>> On Jun 28, 2011, at 11:43 AM, Jonathan Wilkes wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --- 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, 5:11 PM
>>>>
>>>> On Jun 28, 2011, at 12:55 AM, Jonathan Wilkes
>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --- 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.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So we just need a plan of attack.  If you can
>> lead up
>>>> this project, I
>>>> will help as much as I can.  Do you want to
>> include
>>>> the whole docs
>>>> tree in the doc/pddp SVN?
>
> I'm already kind of doing that with pd-l2ork.  I've revised Miller's
> control/audio/ds tutorials.  Pd-l2ork has fixed the crasher bug when
> a patch closes itself, so I've got a navigation toolbar in those  
> tutorials
> that is currently incompatible with pd-extended/vanilla.

I had no idea.  Ico seems to work on his own.  It would be great to  
have those bug fixes submitted to the patch tracker.  The patch  
tracker is what Miller, IOhannes, Martin Peach, me and others use for  
keeping track of patches that are meant to go into pure-data core.


>> Or something
>> else?  It
>>>> seems to me the
>>>> easiest would be to start a separate repository
>> for them,
>>>> like on
>>>> SourceForge, pddp is available: http://sourceforge.net/projects/ 
>>>> pddp
>>>>
>>>> Or we could reorganize doc/pddp in the pure-data
>> SVN.
>>>>
>>>> .hc
>>>
>>> Since Pd-extended and Pd-l2ork already use the PDDP
>> docs, the only thing
>>> we're talking about here is providing PDDP docs for
>> people who use
>>> vanilla, and that's a simple commit.  So I don't
>> see why I have to head up
>>> some new project and learn Debian packaging in order
>> to meander toward (or
>>> around) that goal.
>>
>> Its not a new project. I see it as a better representation
>> of what's currently happening.  You are doing great
>> work with the PDDP docs, I think we can make the structure
>> of that project work better for you.  Having it as a
>> distinct entity means you are less encumbered by others when
>> making decisions about what should happen with PDDP.
>> That distinct entity can be either a folder in the pure-data
>> SVN, a separate SourceForge project, or whatever we think is
>> easiest.  I think one of the first two options would
>> work well.
>>
>> I'm happy to do all of the Debian packaging, that part
>> would be easy for me.
>
> So what is it you want me to do?

To start with, choose a repository to work out of.  Shall we just  
reorganize the doc/pddp folder in pure-data SVN?  Then make that the  
home of your PDDP work, and I'll package it for Debian, and make sure  
the new layout works in Pd-extended.

.hc






>>> The only problem is with pddplink and helplink
>> dependencies, which should
>>> just be included in vanilla as internal objects.
>> Is there a good reason
>>> why they aren't?
>>
>> That's something you'd have to take up with Miller, only he
>> makes the call there.  Honestly, I think we're better
>> off keeping things as distinct libraries.  Miller has
>> limited time to spend on Pd, so the more stuff that's in Pd,
>> the thinner his time is spread.  pd-pddp is in
>> Debian/Ubuntu/Mint etc.  For someone who knows
>> Fedora/RPM packaging, it would be really easy to package
>> it.  Then PDDP is included in Pd-extended already. So
>> that means for the vast majority of users, pddplink and
>> helplink are already part of the standard install.
>>
>>> Maybe my time would be better spent making a "gui"
>> plugin that just grabs
>>> all the stuff that should be core pd but isn't and
>> installs it:
>>> revised/maintained docs, [initbang], [closebang],
>> [pddplink], [helplink],
>>> $@, etc.
>>
>> That's done, that's called Pd-extended ;)
>>
>> .hc
>>
>>>
>>> -Jonathan
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>> Using ReBirth is like trying to play an 808 with a
>> long
>>>> stick.    -
>>>> David Zicarelli
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> The arc of history bends towards justice.
>>    - Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
>>
>>
>>


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

"A cellphone to me is just an opportunity to be irritated wherever you  
are." - Linus Torvalds