[PD] puredata evolution

[shift8]

hey chun - all true.  and i'm maybe not the best person to respond to
this one seeing as it's been months since my last dd test build but, not
that i've interjected :)

building pd can run into the same problems i described for building
desiredata because of various distro variances, i would guess (or that's
my memory playing tricks on me.  hey - it happens :)

i think my point is that compiling code from new source bases all share
the same basic issues, and if you want to be able to test out dd (or
self compile vanilla pd for that matter) you need to first figure out
the debugging methods for compiling under linux before bagging on dd. 

there is always the possibility of the latest sources checked out of the
repo having errors accidental introduced that have not been fixed b4 the
developers submits the changes and the time that the code is checked
out, but are usually still things that you can work around if you learn
the build process. 

even though the dd devs are ridiculously ninja skilled (one look at the
source of desire.c give a clue here :) it can still happen - just one of
the (albeit unlikely and mostly self resolving) pitfalls of
team-oriented development.  you can also just wait for a bit and try
again w/ a fresh checkout. 

no offense meant and good luck!
star

On Wed, 2007-05-30 at 04:17 +0200, [*~] wrote:
> hi all:
> 
> as far as compiling desiredata goes (on linux), it should require just the same dependencies as building Pd. 
> atm, errors are mostly coming from running it, simply because its still very much of a work in progress. 
> 
> shift8 said :
> > it works, but you need to be able to recognize what additional
> > dependencies are needed for your machine, or code modifications for your
> > distro (different versions of gcc have different ideas of what
> > constitutes a build error, diferent versions of link-in external shared
> > libs are a big one too - generally this is ether discovered by through
> > examining compile-time errors and runtime errors...
> > 
> > it takes some work to get a functional build, but that is the nature of
> > deve code, especially dev code from source repositories under active
> > development.
> > 
> > the currently implemented features are very compelling if you can get
> > past the hurdles of getting a build, and all of the built-in objects are
> > functional so you can do some patching with it.
> > 
> 
> yes, once its built, all objects/externals should work, as they are compatible with Pd. excepts those involving GUI/tk. as far as patching goes, there are still a few main problems that needs to be solved. namely GOP and 
> optimized patch loading/updating.  
> 
> > i'd say give it another try - good compelling and way to get knowledge
> > of gcc, linking, etc. etc. too.
> > 
> > the fine folks on #desiredata are very helpful for people attempting
> > builds.
> > 
> 
> the problem with desiredata so far is that both matju and i have been on and off with its development (because of other commitments), so it has been very slow at times. however, we seen to be around these days, so hopefully 
> we will make some good progress on it again soon. 
> 
> > regards - 
> > star
> > 
> > On Tue, 2007-05-29 at 10:35 +0200, Damian Stewart wrote:
> > > Chris McCormick wrote:
> > > 
> > > > Yeah, I agree completely on all counts. Sometimes really great software
> > > > comes out of forks. DesireData looks really interesting, and I know that
> > > > nova isn't a fork, but it looks interesting too. Can't wait until some
> > > > of these cool bits of software reach maturity (same goes for Pd)!
> > > 
> > > i've never been able to get DesireData to work...
> 
> yeah, me too;)
> 
> 
> > > 
> > -- 
> > Mechanize something idiosyncratic.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > PD-list at iem.at mailing list
> > UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
> > 
> 
-- 
Mechanize something idiosyncratic.