[PD] pix_opencv for Mac OS X

ydegoyon at gmail.com ydegoyon at gmail.com
Sat Oct 9 17:11:41 CEST 2010

ola again,

anyway people  could be surprised that we speak of Debian packaging
when the original subject of this thread was pd for Mac OSX..

so what will be the future policy of pd-extended
for Mac OSX now?


ydegoyon at gmail.com wrote:
> ola,
>> There is no one saying we have to abandon any of the libraries that 
>> are included in Pd-extended.
> you published a list of abandonned libraries...
>> I am saying that I cannot keep up with all of the maintenance of all 
>> of the libraries that I currently maintain in Pd-extended.
> that's a different issue, i'm glad you'd rather explain it that way.
>> I need help with that.  I have taken on many libraries which have no 
>> other maintainer.  For things like PDP, PiDiP, etc. I hope that 
>> people who actually use them will maintain them, and I can help where 
>> I can.  I barely do anything with video, so I hardly know how to test 
>> PDP, etc.
> i know that but pd-extended was supposed to do video too no?
>> Even better, the people working on pure:dyne packages and people 
>> working on Pd-extended packages can merge efforts, get them into 
>> Debian, then there will be no difference between PDP/PiDiP/etc 
>> whether its included in pure:dyne or Pd-extended on Debian, Ubuntu, 
>> etc.  We are already well along that road.
> i understood there was no real agreement here,
> because your packaging rules diverge no?
> let's see what pure:dyne people can say about this,
> sevy
>> .hc
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
>> 'You people have such restrictive dress for women,’ she said, 
>> hobbling away in three inch heels and panty hose to finish out 
>> another pink-collar temp pool day.  - “Hijab Scene #2", by Mohja Kahf

More information about the Pd-list mailing list