[PD] /usr/share/pd (was Re: ~/pd or ~/.pd for user's externals directory)
IOhannes m zmoelnig
zmoelnig at iem.at
Tue Jun 17 08:36:33 CEST 2008
Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
> On Jun 16, 2008, at 3:46 PM, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:
>> Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
>>> With this release of Pd-extended, all platforms have default
>>> locations for user-installed externals, helpfiles, etc. I just had
>>> a thought, perhaps ~/.pd would be a better directory than ~/pd.
>>> Any thoughts on that?
>> i would rather have the configuration file(s) move into ~/.pd/
>> this way it is easy to add conffiles for other Pd-related stuff
>> without cluttering the ~ even more.
>>> Here's how it is now:
>>> GNU/Linux: /usr/share/pd and ~/pd
>> according to the Filesystem Hierarchy Standard
>> this directory is reserved for "Architecture-independent data".
>> traditional ("C") externals do not exactly fall into this category.
> Any suggestions for a better location? I know /usr/share/pd is not
> ideal, but I couldn't think of anything better.
hmm, what is wrong with /usr/lib/pd ?
neither /usr/share nor /usr/lib nor the entire /usr are free for the
_user_ (despite the name); /usr contains "shareable, read-only data"
(FHS); this is usually interpreted as being under the sole control of
the package-manager (if such a thing exists), and is in any case _system
so, it would be ok if abstractions, python-externals and other
platform-independent objects would go into /usr/share/pd whereas
compiled (that is: platform dependent) objects (aka: C-externals) must
go into /usr/lib/pd
for the sake of simplicity i would say it doesn't make so much sense, i
would therefore suggest to just stay with /usr/lib/pd (it would make
sense if Pd-extended was split into several packages, some of them being
plaftorm-dependent (containing binaries) and other platform-independent)
More information about the Pd-list