[PD] [dsplib]: how should it be maintained?

[Frank Barknecht]

Hallo,
Roman Haefeli hat gesagt: // Roman Haefeli wrote:

> Name (of the patch/abstraction)
> (Name of the) Author
> Binary deps (pd-version, externals)
> Patch deps (abs-collection or single abs)
> License (e.g. Gnu GPL)
> 
> though it is also my opinion, that in the first place it is important
> that things get done and in the second place how they are done, i think
> that this bit information is essential and should be easy to do.

I think, there is the [pd META] format in pd-extended, which could be
reused for that. For dependencies, I'd prefer [declare], as that gives
a bit more functionality and may give more in its evolution. For
now it would just contain the meta-information.

For a license I actually would prefer the same license for everything in
that collection: the Pd license. But that's of course a hairy issue. 

In general I think, this META information would be good to have and it
could be added or checked by the one checking in the abstractions to
the CVS. 

Some other things: A tricky issue may be abstractions that use other
custom abstractions. I think, a subdirectory for these
sub-abstractions would be good to have, so that the namespace doesn't
get polluted. 

And then: Should we discuss  the namei? "dsp" may be a bit misleading
or too specific. Some random ideas: "sig", "tilde", "play". 

Ciao
-- 
 Frank Barknecht                 _ ______footils.org_ __goto10.org__