[PD] puredata evolution

*~ chun at goto10.org
Wed May 30 12:36:00 CEST 2007


shift8 said :
> 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 :)

sure, its also been months since i worked on dd too:) but i have started working on it again these days and have added a few things. one of which is adjustable mouse pointer sensitivity, so one can quickly change how far 
away, or how accurate can a outlet/inlet be hilited. another thing i am working on right now is keyboard controlled patching, so that i don't have to reach for the mouse one million times a minute;)

> 
> 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. 
> 

yes, another problem is that i might be thinking its easy to compile because it "works" on my laptop, whereas, like you say, every distro are different to some degree. so, i guess unless more people starts to try it out, 
then we can have a more objective view on things. 

> 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. 
> 

yes, i guess once a person starts to follow any kind of experimental code/project, keeping up to date would be essential. 

> 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. 
> 

i don't know much about desire.c myself, my part of dd so far has been on desire.tk mostly.

> no offense meant and good luck!

sure, thanks!

chun

> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PD-list at iem.at mailing list
> UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
> 




More information about the Pd-list mailing list