[PD] compile pd on ubuntu 5.10

[Hans-Christoph Steiner]

On Apr 13, 2006, at 7:04 AM, João Miguel Pais wrote:

>> 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?

I don't think your work was a waste of time at all, this is what we  
all to towards making Pd easier to use for all.  If you want some  
perspective, look back at the way you used to install Pd:

http://web.archive.org/web/20010404044612/http://www.pure-data.org/

The only way to get Pd was to download the sources and compile them  
yourself.  There is now 2000+ objects included in Pd-extended, there  
is the work of perhaps 100+ people.  Its big and complicated, so that  
means that building it is not simple.

The effort that you put into getting things working on Ubuntu and  
documenting it helps us find bugs, make improvements, and future  
people can start with your doc and hopefully take it further.

We aim to make Debian and Ubuntu (or whatever) packages of Pd- 
extended, but someone has to do the work.  The more people who  
contribute, the faster that will happen.  These things are not hard  
to install by design, but rather because no one has done the work to  
make it easy yet.

As for successful compilation on GNU/Linux, if someone else has done  
it, you can too.  But yes, it can be a painful process.

.hc

________________________________________________________________________ 
____

"I have the audacity to believe that peoples everywhere can have  
three meals a day for their bodies, education and culture for their  
minds, and dignity, equality and freedom for their spirits."
                                             - Martin Luther King, Jr.