On Thu, 2010-11-11 at 09:17 +0100, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote: > On 2010-11-10 22:06, Roman Haefeli wrote: > > > > > In the case of iemmatrix (and also zexy, which actually already is > > packaged as a multi-object-single-file library in Debian, but as a > > one-object-one-file library in Pd-extended) and assuming that there > > won't be any intelligent loader loader soon, what is the best way to go? > > > as upstream i would highly recommend to package it as a library.
Ok. > if someone sees a need to _also_ package it as multi-file library, I guess, there _is_ a need also for the multi-file library. Otherwise patches made in Pd-extended will break. Don't know what is the best way to achieve this. Probably something like this: pd-iemmatrix: generic single-file library depending on the metapackage 'pd'. pdextended-iemmatrix: dedicated iemmatrix package for Pd-extended, dependent on 'pd-extendeded', compiled as one-object-per-file library. What do you think? Does that work for everyone, Hans, IOhannes? OTOH, i could imagine that there won't be acceptance from the pkg-multimedia team for including the same package twice, besides the fact that this is very ugly. But I don't see another way than this or consciously breaking Pd-extended. > one > could create 2 binary packages out of the one source package. > but _please_ package iemmatrix as single-file-library until all problems > with hexloader are sorted out. > PS: i knew there was another library i should have packaged for debian. I didn't mean to take that away from you. Before I started I wanted to point out possible issues. Roman _______________________________________________ Pd-dev mailing list Pd-dev@iem.at http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev