[PD] deken package question

Liam Goodacre liamg_uw at hotmail.com
Sun Jun 3 05:57:27 CEST 2018

Hi IOhannes

I'm not asking for anything to be changed, just  seeking advice on how to make my upload without messing it up.

If I generate the package,  delete the dummy external and the checksum, then upload the package (generating a new checksum), will it work?

From: Pd-list <pd-list-bounces at lists.iem.at> on behalf of IOhannes m zmölnig <zmoelnig at iem.at>
Sent: Saturday, June 2, 2018 10:41:43 PM
To: pd-list at lists.iem.at
Subject: Re: [PD] deken package question

On Fri, Jun 01, 2018 at 02:40:33PM +0000, Liam Goodacre wrote:
> I've got it to work, but when I generate the package it doesn't identify the platform, giving me something like "context[v0.4]--.dek". I guessed that this was because the externals I'm using are all in sub-folders, so I tried copying one across to the main folder. Sure enough, the package now identifies the platform correctly, but I'm not sure what the best course of action is from here. Should I:

the main obstacle here is that this is not really the common use-case for
which deken cmdline is optimized (which is: packaging a single library,
without internal dependencies).

i think that the tool should cover the most common use cases, but there
is no need to support edge cases (the difficulty is obviously in drawing
the line).

>   1.  zip the package with the extra external, then delete it once the compression is done (but this would probably invalidate the checksum?)

well, if the checksum (and/or gpg signature) are missing and you are
using `deken upload` for uploading they will be automatically
(re)generated.  (however, i was thinking about introducing "--gpg=no" and
"--hash=no" args to prevent this (also for packaging).

>   2.  zip the package without the extra external, then rename it manually

not sure i totally understand what you mean by this, but it sounds

>   3.  something else?

probably a "--recursive" (or similar) flag to indicate that
subdirectories should be searched recursively would help (please open a
ticket in the issue tracker, if you agree).
it was a conscious decision to *not* do recursive searches by default, i
don't think i want to change that.


> Thanks,
> Liam

> _______________________________________________
> Pd-list at lists.iem.at mailing list
> UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list

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/20180603/cdc6ae56/attachment.html>

More information about the Pd-list mailing list