On May 24, 2011, at 4:02 AM, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 2011-05-23 00:59, Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
Would it make sense to also add the versions since it won't build
with
the 'puredata' package 0.43 or newer, something like:
puredata-dev | puredata << 0.43
i believe this is a bug in the packaging, and is fixed in current git
(solution: make "puredata" _depend_ on "puredata-dev" as well)
i was only waiting to ping paul to upload the package, but afaik he is
currently on a sailing trip.
I think if he's away for a while, this would be a good case for a NMU,
once we get everything sorted out. Piem does seem to disappear for
long stretches. I think we could probably get someone in pkg-
multimedia to do it.
Also about puredata-core, it has a menu item set by puredata-
core.menu.
That means that you could have puredata-core installed without the
GUI,
but having it launched from the Menu. Since the .desktop file is
puredata.desktop, I propose moving the .menu item to puredata.menu
also. I think it would be confusing and not useful to have a menu
item
that used to launch a GUI, but now might launch something that
might not
have a GUI.
right now "puredata" does not provide any files itself, only
dependencies to it's sub-packages.
lintian will not like it, if there is a binary in the .menu/.desktop
files that is not provided by the package itself. given the dependency
structure, we could do a lintian override though.
i'm wondering whether it wouldn't be better to put the menu into
puredata-gui and launch pd-gui instead.
Yes! That's the best way to handle it. I forgot that part of the
idea of pd 0.43 was to make it so when you launch Pd using 'pd-gui',
it will not launch an new instance for files opened via file
associations/double-clicking. It does this automatically if the files
are associated to open using 'pd-gui' rather than 'pd'. So the .menu
and file associations should all use 'pd-gui'.
Also, FYI, I pushed a commit adding Comment= fields to puredata.desktop.
About puredata-extra, I am planning on making the 'pdextended'
package
"Recommend: puredata-extra" instead of including the same source and
binaries. Would it be ok to change the Depends: for puredata-extra
to:
puredata-core (= ${binary:Version}) | pd
hmm, the split is mainly there because you elaborated on having extra/
separately. what made you change your mind?
apart from that: puredata-extra would have to be reworked into pd-
extra,
in order to make it useable by "pd" without breaking the pd vs
puredata
separation. (if you want to make pdx search objects in
/usr/lib/puredata/extra, then we could have simply left everything in
/usr/lib/pd/)
furthermore: i think that the above depends stanza sounds like a bad
idea, as it would allow to have puredata-extra_0.43.0-4 to be
installed
with either exactly puredata-core_0.43.0-4 or with
pdextended-0.39.4-1;
so if we change, i think it should be:
Depends: pd
finally: actually there is no need to fuddle around with the
dependencies. if "pdextended" _recommends_ "puredata-extra", you can
install pdextended just fine, even with puredata-extra. puredata-extra
would pull in some more dependencies (that is: puredata-core) but i
guess that pdextended will by default pull in a thousand packages
anyhow :-)
OK, makes sense, let's leave puredata-extra as it is. Thanks for
reminding me of what I said before :)
.hc
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have always wished for my computer to be as easy to use as my
telephone; my wish has come true because I can no longer figure out
how to use my telephone." --Bjarne Stroustrup (creator of C++)
_______________________________________________
pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list
pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
