[PD] pd-extended 0.42.5 packages for many Ubuntu releases, i386/amd64
hans at at.or.at
Fri Sep 28 22:29:47 CEST 2012
On 09/28/2012 04:03 PM, András Murányi wrote:
>>>> I think it'll be a lot easier if you start with just 'puredata' and the
>>>> libs based on the Library Template. Then once you get the hang of basic
>>>> RPM packaging, you can take on the whole pd-extended, which can be
>>>> painful. Also, I think that Pd-extended 0.43.1 will be a lot easier to
>>>> package since I've fixed all of the problems that came up during the
>>>> proper debian packaging.
>>> Well... I'm actually enjoying RPM packaging, it's a nice compact thing
>>> everything controlled from a single spec file, and at the moment the
>>> simpler way for me is to try to get pd-extended build, and to get into
>>> Library Template, which I'm completely unfamiliar with, at a later point.
>>> The problems which I'm having are with some individual externals, but
>>> way when I solve one, the next one comes up, so it's easy to go through
>>> of them. At least I hope so.
>>> I'd even say: let me finish packaging 0.42.5-extended as a monolith now
>>> (according to the original topic), and let's do 0.43 with the Library
>>> Template approach later. Is that OK?
>>> Again, I'm focusing more on the RPM side and I'd by happy if I could
>> feed a
>>> debian-ready source tar.gz to the OBS, and I'd provide only the dsc. The
>>> less cool way is to upload a static file (like the one generated by
>>> pd-extended-source-tarball.sh), the more cool way would be to link to one
>>> which is online somewhere. Is there one?
>> You should do it how you want to do it. I suggested starting with the
>> library template because I think it would be a lot easier, since the
>> Makefile was custom made to work well with Debian packaging by providing
>> very standard names for commands "make clean", "make", "make install",
>> "make dist", etc.
> Alrite, let's see if the whole thing proves to be a bite too big... :)
> For the separate RPM packages, one source package will be enough since it's
> possible to define multiple binary packages with the same spec file. It's
> rather handy from the source package side, I'll just have to see how to
> apply it to the Library Template.
> For the separate DEBs, I'm not yet sure which kind of organization will be
> the best. Maybe a bunch if dsc files in the same OBS source package, but I
> wonder if they could use the same tar.gz at least.
With debs, you can also have one source package make many binary
packages. All of that is already handled by the library template, so if
you want to build the per-library debs, you can just get the debian
package sources and upload those. You can find many of those via our
Debian QA pages:
More information about the Pd-list