[PD] deken and windows

[Alexandre Torres Porres]

2017-02-17 18:51 GMT-02:00 IOhannes m zmölnig <zmoelnig at iem.at>:

> check the archives for the discussion on (not) automatically
> creating those paths (...) i would like to avoid going through that
> discussion *again*.
>

I could use some help like pointing me a thread subject or something, I
usually never find discussions I want and been part of in the archives...


> please file a feature request at the deken project


done https://github.com/pure-data/deken/issues/140


Oh, I am definitely going to challenge that notion. I am totally
> convinced the _correct_ way for the user-specific folder is to be
> created automatically at some point.


not shockingly, I totally agree... The current situation is just totally
absurd indeed and I just wanted to stress it.

>From what I remember, people objected to the auto-creation of ~/pd-
> externals directory. Yes, I, too, find it rogue to create visible
> folders directly in the user home without asking.


Was that really it? and why is it "rogue" to create a folder Pd needs as
the standard? I can't make sense out of this...


> I vaguely remember that people didn't want a pre-established way,
> because they thought that workflows are so diverse that deken shouldn't
> enforce one specific workflow.


But that it's exactly what it is doing right now! It always asks for the
SAME folder *every time* you start Pd... which is _never_ the one I use. So
if that was the reasoning, then this seems to have been in vain... and how
about this issue I had with windows? Where it's forcing a workflow that
doesn't work out of the box unless there is some workaround...


> Deviating workflows wouldn't be harmed at all by auto-creation of
> the user specific standard directory.


It would actually have solve my issue in windows...

cheers

2017-02-17 19:27 GMT-02:00 Roman Haefeli <reduzent at gmail.com>:

> On Fre, 2017-02-17 at 21:51 +0100, IOhannes m zmölnig wrote:
> >
> >
> > it's trivial to create those folders (deken did that in the past),
> > but
> > it has been consciously disabled.
>
> I disagree. I don't find it a conscious decision.
>
> > i would like to avoid going through that discussion *again*.
>
> Sorry, since the topic came up, I had to express what I was thinking
> for quite some time. While I understand your rejection to discuss the
> same topic several times, good progress often needs several attempts.
>
> Roman
> _______________________________________________
> Pd-list at lists.iem.at mailing list
> UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> https://lists.puredata.info/
> listinfo/pd-list
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.puredata.info/pipermail/pd-list/attachments/20170218/227f484a/attachment-0001.html>