[PD] crash in readanysf~ 0.33

[Hans-Christoph Steiner]

On May 24, 2009, at 3:54 PM, IOhannes m zmölnig wrote:

> Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
>>>
>>> my point has always been quite clear, that i do not especially  
>>> like the
>>> idea putting every single line of source we can get our hands on and
>>> which some piece of software eventually included by Pd-extended  
>>> depends
>>> on into the repository.
>>> i'd purge GemLibs alltogether rather sooner than later (afaik it is
>>> currently entirely dysfunctional; but you never know and that is the
>>> main reason why it is still there...) and instead revive the idea of
>>> providing GemLib-packages with pre-compiled binaries of the  
>>> dependencies.
>> I am suggesting managing the avdec source code in our SVN, not  
>> binaries.  That's what I thought GemLibs was for.
>
> yes, that what GemLib is/was for and and i still want to get rid of  
> the pd-gem svn part of GemLib.
>
>
>> I agree managing binaries in SVN is not a very good idea as a  
>> general practice.
>
> yes, i guess we are totally in accordance here.
>
>> That said, I feel I must reiterate: SVN is a very useful tool for  
>> managing source code, and that's what we are talking about.
>
> indeed.
>
>> I am
> [...]
>> I have
> [...]
>> Bottom line, I have
> [...]
>
> i have (and had) no intention to question your qualifications.
> sorry if i sound a bit mr.know-it-all.
>
>
>> I think that it will be the least work to import avdec into our SVN  
>> and use it from there until it is in the package management of the  
>> supported platforms.
>> Can we put this issue of importing source code to rest?  This is  
>> standard, very common, and indeed a very labor saving practice.
>
> please hold on.
> i thought you was asking people (including me) for their opinion.
> if you don't care about aberrant opinions, then please don't ask.
>
> i was always joking about "putting the linux-kernel into the / 
> sources section, since the entire linux-part of Pd-extended  
> certainly depends on the kernel".
> this punchline of this joke was of course, that the linux-kernel is  
> rather big compared to the entire Pd-extended source-base, and that  
> this  practice tends to include the entire world, which i think is a  
> waste of ressources (probably a european green attitude).
> i am shocked, that the punchline no longer holds: the current / 
> source folder holds about 322 Megabyte (without any revisions or  
> such) of sources which have absolutely nothing to do with Pd (in a  
> sense that probably none of the main developers of any of the  
> included packages have ever heard of Pure data)
>
> the linux sources for 2.6.26 (with all debian patches applied) is  
> about 317MB...
>
>>> finally, i was wondering what i have to do in order to use  
>>> gmerlin_avdec
>>> in Gem (which has not been yet done; i suppose you did not break the
>>> entire code-base on your way to porting it to osx/w32 ;-))
>> Its installed on the Mac OS X build farm machines already.  We are  
>> working on getting into the Windows build machine.
>
> ah i see. so it's mainly about getting Gem compiling on w32 with gcc/ 
> autotools.
> this reminds me: sorry that i was unable to attend the mingw hack  
> party on IRC; i had forgotten that i had another long-planned date...


Jokes are all fine and good, I guess I was being too earnest.  I was  
trying to have a productive conversation.  So we both just spent a  
fair amount of time on this discussion and as far as I can tell, we  
are not any closer a solution for managing gmerlin-avdec.

So, anyone have any specific objections about how importing gmerlin- 
avdec code into the pure-data SVN might cause harm?  Or any better  
solutions for managing gmerlin-avdec?

.hc


----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Computer science is no more related to the computer than astronomy is  
related to the telescope.      -Edsger Dykstra