--- On Tue, 6/28/11, Hans-Christoph Steiner <[email protected]> wrote:
> From: Hans-Christoph Steiner <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [PD-dev] packaging the pddp docs > To: "Jonathan Wilkes" <[email protected]> > Cc: [email protected] > Date: Tuesday, June 28, 2011, 6:27 AM > > On Jun 27, 2011, at 6:45 PM, Jonathan Wilkes wrote: > > > > > > > --- On Mon, 6/27/11, Hans-Christoph Steiner <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > >> From: Hans-Christoph Steiner <[email protected]> > >> Subject: [PD-dev] packaging the pddp docs > >> To: [email protected] > >> Date: Monday, June 27, 2011, 9:21 PM > >> > >> Now that the core Pd docs (i.e. /usr/lib/pd/doc/*) > are > >> split out into a > >> separate Debian package, I think it could make > sense to > >> package the PDDP > >> docs in a kind of mirror or replacement package. > >> Something like > >> pddp-doc. Jonathan, in particular, I was > thinking > >> that since you have > >> wanted to work on all the patches there, we could > set it up > >> so the > >> pddp-doc package mirrors the whole > /usr/lib/pd/doc* > >> directory and patch > >> structure, have this in SVN, git, or whatever > >> somewhere. Then people > >> could choose the pddp-doc package if they so > choose. > > > > The PDDP docs I did are all for vanilla objects > (exceptions are > > expr family, and the other "vanilla" extras). If > a new user clicks > > "Help" on a vanilla object, it should show the revised > PDDP help > > patch by default. > > > > So instead of what you propose, please make something > like a > > legacy-vanilla-help package. That way, if > someone really prefers > > the old docs, they can still find them, and we won't > waste new users' time > > by forcing them to use outdated and unmaintained docs > (until they figure > > out they're supposed to download a separate package > for the current > > vanilla help patches, which nobody has to do for any > of the external > > packages). > > > > -Jonathan > > > I agree that the PDDP docs are much better, that's why I > want to get them out there more. Part of packaging is > representing the upstream as it is and letting the user > decide. So I think it makes sense to keep puredata-doc > as what's included in the official tarball. As for > Pd-extended, I think it should still use the PDDP docs, so > like you say, showing the PDDP docs by default. Ok. > I > think that making the PDDP docs as their own package and > distro will make it easier for you to get your work out to > users. > > .hc > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > As we enjoy great advantages from inventions of others, we > should be glad of an opportunity to serve others by any > invention of ours; and this we should do freely and > generously. - Benjamin > Franklin > > > _______________________________________________ Pd-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev
