[PD] Different versions of iemguts library in Deken

Alexandre Torres Porres porres at gmail.com
Thu Mar 2 18:37:18 CET 2017

2017-03-02 6:13 GMT-03:00 Roman Haefeli <reduzent at gmail.com>:

> I thought those are meant to be transitional
> packages that don't receive any further maintenance.

What do you mean? Some packages are being updated and have newer versions,
some are abandoned and only have this version from the last *pd-extended*
up there... but they're not all meant to be either in one group or another,
and basically anyone can work on an abandoned library and update/upload a
new version...

> I think it would be confusing to have proper version numbers in both, the
> transitional packages and the actively maintained ones, since the
> Pd-extended packages might not only differ

Well, if they differ in version, it's good to know which version it is, if
it's a newer version, an older version, the same version... I think it's
really confusing if you do not know the version at all... you just can't
compare! And you have to understand that most people looking at it cannot
really grasp the idea that the package is "from the last extended package"
- you can see the question from David as an example...

> in version but also in packaging format (one-file-per-object libraries vs.
> multi-object-single-file libraries).

that's really uncommon, but why does it matter? You can still load and
install the library.

Anyway, seems that deken can take any kind of information and display it. I
get it that it's nice to have a clue that it's from extended, so, instead
of "v0.0.extended" why not give it a proper version and also explicitly say
it's from pd extended? Example suggestion;

instead of "*cyclone-v0-0extended*",
it could be "*cyclone-v0.1alpha56-pd-extended*"

would that be worse somehow?

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.puredata.info/pipermail/pd-list/attachments/20170302/9be65be8/attachment.html>

More information about the Pd-list mailing list