[PD] (Solved) pd~ subprocess not responsive

Max abonnements at revolwear.com
Mon Sep 8 20:08:24 CEST 2014

Hash: SHA1

On 09/08/2014 04:36 PM, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:
> On 2014-09-08 05:17, Max wrote:
>> Both are vanilla. What I am using is the Debian package Pd
>> 0.45.4 and what I compiled and installed was Pd 0.46.0.
> for what it is wort: Debian already has 0.46.0 in testing [1].

cool, thanks for that. I guess it is just a matter of patience until
it tickles down to Linux Mint.

>> I can't use the newer one because I wasn't able to get it to 
>> compile with jack... but that's another issue. I am fine with
>> Pd 0.45.4 for the moment. I am not 100% sure what was going on,
>> but the paths were "polluted" after the install so the
>> repository version looked for pd~ in the wrong place. The pd~
>> which was found there did not work, may be because it was
>> compiled without jack?
> let me recapitulate your setup:
> - debian "puredata" (0.45) package installed - lives in
> /usr/lib/puredata/ - has jack enabled - self-compiled "pd" (0.46)
> package installed (with "make install") - lives in
> /usr/local/lib/pd - does not have jack enabled - your .pdsettings
> has (well: had) "/usr/local/lib/pd/extra" in it's path
> - you start Pd via the desktop-menu, which really starts 
> "/usr/bin/puredata" (0,45; the debian package) - it finds (and
> tries to use) the "pd~" in /usr/local/... - and fails.
> is that correct?

as far as I can tell, I think that's what was happening.

> the jack-error you get indicates some problem with jack, but it
> might as well not (and it would be *very* weird if the pd~.pd_linux
> having *no* jack support would trigger a problem here. butthen: who
> knows?)

the Jack error is unrelated and is still there. It doesn't seem to do
any harm though as it is running fine.

>> m.
>> On 09/08/2014 04:06 AM, Miller Puckette wrote:
>>> This is strange - Pd extended should be using a different spot
>>>  (~/.pdextended on linux) than pd vanilla to store user 
>>> preferences. So I don't know why the two should be stepping on 
>>> each others' toes like this.
> i don't think this is the case at all (i mean: there is no stepping
> on anyones toes).
> someone added /usr/local/lib/pd/extra/ to the search path of 
> *pd-vanilla* (either the user or some external - e.g. mine have a 
> reputation for fuddling with the search path), and this led to
> some conflict.
> i don't see much we could do about that apart from putting a 
> Pd-version check inplace and issue a bold warning if somebody tries
> to load an external compiled for another version of Pd. and then:
> we probably don't want to go there (since Pd has a very stable
> external ABI, and this is one of it's features).
> so if my recapitulation above is correct, then the only problem we 
> were seeing was, that the external launched a non-working version
> of Pd. this is probably a thing that can be fixed in pd~: i guess
> it is sane to assume that [pd~] should really launch the same
> version of Pd it is running in (rather than the one it is relative
> to): that is when running $ /home/foo/mystuff/pd/bin/pd -lib
> /usr/local/lib/pd/extra/pd~ then pd~ should *also* start
> /home/foo/mystuff/pd/bin/pd rather than /usr/local/bin/pd
> if this is not the case, than we have the simple case that we have
> two (conflicting) versions of an external installed, and the way Pd
> loads externals preferred the buggy one. i don't think there is
> anything we can really do about that, apart from changing the
> search path order, which i think is a no go. (after all, the search
> path order has been constructed in order to allow a bugfixed
> external replace a buggy system-shipped one; alas! it can be used
> in the other way round as well)

I agree entirely. It did cost me some time to figure out what is
happening, and that's frustrating. But if you'd ask me what could be
done to make it better or foolprof - I don't think there is a flaw in
existing way how it works.

Version: GnuPG v1


More information about the Pd-list mailing list