On 2010-11-11 10:07, Roman Haefeli wrote: > > > 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? >
i agree, that the prefixes should reflect the "Depends:" clause.
("pdextended-iemmatrix" should thus 'Depend' on pd-extended)
however, i don't see, why "pd-iemmatrix-multifile" (this is _not_ a
proposal for a good name) should not be able to run with "puredata" (if
the user deliberately choses so), so one should not tie this package to
"pdextended".
> OTOH, i could imagine that there won't be acceptance from the
> pkg-multimedia team for including the same package twice, besides the
this we should probably discuss on the pkg-multimedia list.
> fact that this is very ugly. But I don't see another way than this or
> consciously breaking Pd-extended.
the question is, how much will break in reality.
people using [import iemmatrix] and consequently using [mtx_egg] will
not experience any degradation in flavour.
people wanting to use [mtx_*] with multifile have a stale flavour anyhow.
anyhow, until pd-hexloader is packaged, this discussion is quite moot
anyhow.
i don't think that switching from single-binary to multi-binary in the
package would cause much trouble.
>> 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.
>
though now i have created some ITPs for various iem-packages, including
iemmatrix ;-)
mcvasdr
IOhannes
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
_______________________________________________ Pd-dev mailing list Pd-dev@iem.at http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev
