[PD] enhance pd-extended with pd-l2ork featues ?

Charles Goyard cg at fsck.fr
Thu Feb 7 09:54:01 CET 2013

IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:
> > so everythings works fine with the /usr/local/ version.
> which is great, but i'd wanted to point out, that in most distros
> /usr/local/ is for "manually installed" packages (that is, software
> not under the distro's package management control).

Yes, that's right. I guess that's a "it just works" quick package.

> as for the cyclist/pdsend/pdreceive,
> [...] i wanted to stress that they should be factored out into separate
> packages (which is the case already for pd/pdx, as we have
> puredata-utils and cyclist as separate packages), and not be included
> into the "big superpackages".
> esp. if they are the only blockers to let the three flavours live
> side-by-side.

One thing that made me switch from debian (after years of use) to arch
is how debian splits things too much (ie -core -dev -doc -utils), and
takes detours (alternatives, nested includes...) and thus makes it hard
to have something close to the upstream software. Most arch packages are
essentially about wrapping the configure/make/make install stance with
sensible paths and dependencies. So having pdsend, pdsend.pd-extended
and pd.send.pd-l2ork, why not ?

However I'm not religious about that, since I actually install the
various pd flavors and versions by hand in /opt :). 

So if that makes things easier I'm with you, since using the same
packaging scheme across distros is certainly good :).



More information about the Pd-list mailing list