Hello IOhannes, thanks for your answer...
On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 4:08 AM, IOhannes m zmoelnig <zmoel...@iem.at>wrote: > Anderson Goulart wrote: > >> Hello all, >> > > puredata-ext-XX - package containing a single external >> puredata-abs-XX - package containing a single abstraction >> > > why do you want to separate them? how does a "single external" differ (substantially) from a "single > abstraction"? (esp. since .deb takes care of platform-in/dependency) > > Well, this is just an ideia and we can decide to use names like puredata-xxx, where xxx is the name of external/abstraction. What I want here is to discuss the conventions about packaging things related to Pd. > do you really want to distribute a _single_ file with an entire .deb or do > you rather mean "library"? > > Maybe we can distribute a "library" if those externals/abstractions are related. But if they are different, with different upstream authors, with different dependencies and different funcionalities, I think distribute an entire .deb is better than put it together in a library. > how does this integrate into the already existing debian infrastructure for > Pd? e.g. with naming schemes like "pd-zexy" or "pd-gem" (that is: why do we > want to reinvent the wheel?) > > I am not a debian developer, but I am sure we can talk to them to upload all packages to the official repo. The naming conventions are just suggestions and we can use pd-xxx instead of puredata-xxx. The main idea of this email is to separate pd-extended into some .deb packages to become more clear and easier to maintain to many architectures and distribution versions. bye, global
_______________________________________________ Pd-dev mailing list Pd-dev@iem.at http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev