[PD-dev] pd-extended exectuable - packaging for Debian

[zmoelnig at iem.at]

Quoting Kaj Ailomaa <zequence at mousike.me>:
> Thanks. I'm studying the puredata rules file.
> But, not sure yet if I need to use any of that. Well, maybe from where
> to find the changelog, and such.

whatever pleases you.

>
> As is now, I can change the name of the executable with the configure
> option --program-suffix.
> The files always end up in /usr/lib/pd-extended no matter what. Should
> the config option also change that?

where do you want the lib-stuff to go?
/usr/lib/pd-extended seems like the right place to me.

> However, there seems to be a bug. It changes three files, not only the
> executable.
> I solve it by using a postinst script to rename the two files that
> shouldn't.
>
> https://sourceforge.net/p/pure-data/bugs/1105/

else i'm not sure whether i understand your problem.


in any case, i can only reiterate, that  the "puredata" package  
already handles the renaming properly. the package build process has  
proven to work for years. i'm pretty sure that you could just take it  
and do a 's/pure-data/pd-extended/g' on the rules-file.

i figure that the "pd-extended" package will only contain the patched  
version of Pd (that is: all the externals will be separate packages  
that are pulled in via dependencies). so the packaging should be  
virtually the same as for "puredata".

gfmasdr
IOhannes


PS: i would highly suggest, recommend or even depend to use  
"Recommends" for declaring dependencies on externals whenever  
possible. according to the Debian policy [1], "Recommends [...]   
declares a strong, but not absolute, dependency". in practice this  
means that any package-manager (in their default settings) will  
install the recommended packages, but if the user decides to uninstall  
one of them, they will not end up with having to decide either to  
remove Pd-extended completely or end up with a broken system.


[1] http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-relationships.html