[PD] compile pd on ubuntu 5.10

[João Miguel Pais]

> Now its dying on PDP.  I don't know much about PDP, and using tigital's  
> binary for Pd-extended on Mac OS X.  It shouldn't be enabled.
>
> Around line 121 in externals/Makefile, it should look like this:
>
>    ifeq ($(OS_NAME),darwin)
>      LIB_TARGETS += hid
>    else
>
> I am guessing yours looks like this:
>
>    ifeq ($(OS_NAME),darwin)
>      LIB_TARGETS += hid pdp
>    else
>
> Remove the "pdp" if you want to compile the rest.  The version in CVS  
> does not have the "pdp" there.

it was already in order.


Anyway I think that this whole thread might have been a mistake. I just  
went to your site (H-C) and downloaded and installed the latest  
pd-extended. And it works (well, I didn't check everything, pdp wasn't  
there).

What I was trying to do in the beggining was to going to cvs, and to  
compile the latest pd version, with all abstractions, externals, etc.  
integrated into it. Which didn't work at first. (or maybe not. since I  
have also other things to do than play the linux-installation maze game,  
sometimes I can't keep anymore with it, even I have the whole thread  
documented here)

So, now I have a working pd-extended, and a not-working pd-cvs-version. My  
question would be:
- is there a way to sucessfully compile the whole cvs thing from itself?  
(which would be feasable for me) or it is too much trouble?
- if not, I would try to keep the working pd-ext, and  
symlink/path/whatever to the pd-cvs folders which aren't included  
(abstractions, etc)
- which of this choices would be more adequate? or is there a better one?

(I'm sorry to be going around, but this has been temendously frustrating  
and a waste of time. now I recall why I already a few times went away from  
linux - but this time I'm worrying only with pd and not with other general  
system problems. thanks ubuntu for that, I guess)


By the way, I just opened my gui-ed abstr, and noticed that in X it looks  
quite different from xp (not so pretty). Is there anyone who has tried it  
on both machines and looked good? Or is it a font issue, which is also too  
complicated/not worth it to solve?

Thanks again,

Joao