On Don, 2017-03-02 at 09:25 +0100, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote: > On 2017-03-02 03:49, Alexandre Torres Porres wrote: > > > > but I think it would make much more sense to put these libraries > > there with > > their actual version number. > thank you for volunteering in finding out the actual version numbers > of > ~100 libraries. > > i will happily rename the existing libraries, just send me a > computer-parsable file with the librarynames (as found in deken) and > their actual version numbers.
Please don't. I'm happy that you went through the trouble to port all(most?) of Pd-extended to Deken to make the transition for Pd- extended users easier. But I thought those are meant to be transitional packages that don't receive any further maintenance. I think it would be confusing to have proper version numbers in both, the transitional packages and the actively maintained ones, since the Pd-extended packages might not only differ in version but also in packaging format (one-file-per-object libraries vs. multi-object-single-file libraries). Roman
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
