[PD] Pd-extended 0.42.5 release candidate 6 released!

[Hans-Christoph Steiner]

On Sep 16, 2010, at 11:04 AM, Roman Haefeli wrote:

> On Thu, 2010-09-16 at 09:58 -0400, Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
>> On Sep 16, 2010, at 3:22 AM, Roman Haefeli wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 2010-09-15 at 18:57 -0400, Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
>>>> When people use Pd-extended 0.42.5, they expect that certain
>>>> libraries
>>>> will be there, and they will be a certain version.  For example
>>>> Pd-extended 0.42.5 includes Gem 0.92.3.  So you can say "my patch
>>>> works
>>>> with Pd-extended 0.42.5" and it'll work with any installation of
>>>> Pd-extended 0.42.5.
>>>
>>> I totally got that. And I never meant to put that in question.
>>>
>>>> If Pd-extended 0.42.5 also looks at /usr/lib/pd, then someone could
>>>> install Gem 0.93 there and Pd-extended would use it.  Let's say Gem
>>>> 0.93
>>>> introduces an obscure bug which breaks your patch.  Then someone
>>>> who has
>>>> installed Pd-extended 0.42.5 can no longer be sure that the patch
>>>> will
>>>> always work with Pd-extended 0.42.5.
>>>
>>> That's why I proposed to put the path /usr/lib/pd/extra last in the
>>> order. So Pd-extended would still load it's own Gem and not the
>>> manually
>>> installed one. It's really *_only_* about making it easier to load
>>> libraries that are *_not_yet_* part of Pd-extended while at the same
>>> time not interfere with the libraries that are already part of
>>> Pd-extended. I hope I could make myself clear now.
>>
>> Its not clear what the result would be with that, and I want to get
>> this release out.
>> Anyone is still free to add /usr/lib/pd/extra to
>> their path, so its not a big deal.
>
> I was assuming (and still believe) that adding a path at the end would
> be not big deal. But yeah, doing it manually is also no big deal.
>
> There is one major disadvantage by adding it using the menu, though:  
> You
> have no control of the order. I added it and it was not put at the end
> of the current list. So to me it seems, that adding manually has a
> higher chance of making someone's Pd-extended installation  
> incompatible
> with others. Again, this could be avoided if the path would be already
> hard-coded at the end of the path list.
>
> Please, don't get me wrong, I don't think, that is issue is utterly
> important and needs to be fixed right now, but I hesitate to stop a
> discussion when I feel that my arguments weren't understood. I'm OK  
> with
> letting it rest until 0.43 is released.
>
> Roman

For future reference, if you test this with many patches on all  
platforms, then I would start to be convinced that is it ok.  It may  
not be apparent, but I do a lot of testing, and I do it on Ubuntu, Mac  
OS X, Windows XP/7.  I installed Windows 7 just to have it available  
for testing, as much as that sucked.  The Windows package is still the  
most downloaded.

.hc




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

I have always wished for my computer to be as easy to use as my  
telephone; my wish has come true because I can no longer figure out  
how to use my telephone."  --Bjarne Stroustrup (creator of C++)