[PD] standard paths for externals

Alexandre Torres Porres porres at gmail.com
Wed Jun 13 17:13:52 CEST 2018

2018-06-13 4:18 GMT-03:00 Roman Haefeli <reduzent at gmail.com>:

> I seem to disagree in almost everything you say.

I didnt say anything, I'm quoting someone else...

> Your proposal has two - imho: major - drawbacks.

It's not my proposal, I'm not proposing anything...

> By putting libraries
> anywhere (outside any searchpath) and loading them per preferences, you
> loose the ability to 'activate' libraries on the fly from the patch
> with [declare]

Like I said, there is a Pull Request that already fixes this. And I'm the
one who reported that issue, by the way, so I know about it.

> I don't see a good reason to proactively work against this as you seem to
> do.

again, this is not me, not my proposal, so I'm not doing anything...

> In my understanding, the user should just know what libraries to
> download and the rest is done by the patch by using the right
> [declare}s. Also, by preventing [declare] from working - as you propose

It's funny how you keep putting this on my bill as my proposal. I dont know
where you got the idea Im proposing that... all I said is that things are
going this way now, and there might still be issues as with declare, but
it'll be fixed in the next release. This is not a matter of opinion, not a
proposal, just reporting facts here.

> > > there's a deep rift between the factions.
> >
> > Ok, I don't know about that
> Now you know.

All I know is that you're reporting a bug that has a Pull request that
already fixes it. And by the way, it already works like that if you want to
load libraries like cyclone, zexy, Gem. The issue is only with adding a
path to declare. I, for one, just do not use [declare], and can live pretty
well without it, really.

Deken has made it painless to download and add a path for you. I get it if
you like [declare] and want to use it so maybe don't do this way right now.
But you can live without it if you wanted. There are ways to manage
dependencies and everything. All this argument seem to imply [declare] is
the only possible mechanism to deal with importing libraries. It is not.

> By 'new way' you mean that libraries should be installed anywhere and
> added to the preferences?

yes, add it to the path, that is what Miller said in that message and all
discussions prior to 0.48 went in this direction where we don't want people
to install libraries to "Standard Paths", just into user added paths.
Again, for the 1000th time, that wasn't my proposal, I actually argued
against it, using the very same argument that [declare] wouldn't work well,
but the idea is now to just fix that...

So yeah, I'm now cool with it...

> It appears to me that you created this mess by requesting that
> ~/Library/Pd should be replaced by ~/Documents/Pd (in macOS, at least).

I don't have the power to change Pd. And I didn't create any "mess" because
I didn't propose a change to not use "standard paths" as you didn't like.

Yes, I proposed a new standard path change, but the outcome was that Miller
and Dan felt users shouldn't use "standard paths", like I said before.

> I couldn't care less about macOS, but in my opinion the fact that you need
> to hit Shift-Cmd-G to
> graphically visit this folder doesn't warrant this change in Pd.

That is not what happened. Pd didn't change because of Apple... at all.

Why does the user need to check that folder anyway, since
> Deken already manages it quite well?

It actually doesn't, you still need to access folders to do simple things
like removing an older version of a library before installing a new one.
But again, you're not getting the real issue. None of this came up because
of apple, or because deken is not perfect yet. It is only a matter of not
wanting people to install libraries in "Standard Path" in the first and
only place. Don't try to find other reason that that. That is it.

If you have an issue with that besides the bug that is already being fixed.
Please bring it to the table.

sorry for saying it directly - which you are at least partially responsible
> for.

wow, I didn't realize when you mentioned a million times before I had
responsibility for this :) thanks for being direct.

I hope you realize though I had zero responsibility (not even partial) as.
I never proposed any of this and, in fact, like I said in the first
message, I had opposed myself.

Sorry to repeat myself over and over. But it seems it was necessary to make
a point I'm not your target.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.puredata.info/pipermail/pd-list/attachments/20180613/3b426398/attachment.html>

More information about the Pd-list mailing list