[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#603175: pd-osc (was Re: Bug#603175: reorganize upstream first)



-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256


I also think that having it separate libraries like 'osc' and 'net' makes sense, then we can phase out the 'mrpeach' lib or whatever. Mostly, its your code, so it'd be good to hear how you want to have it released and packaged.

.hc

On Jun 14, 2011, at 9:37 AM, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

hi martin,

in the process of getting numerous pd-libraries into debian (and thus
ubuntu and other debian derivatives), we stumbled upon a small issue in
your set of objects.

as things are right now, there are no "upstream releases" of your
libraries; in SVN they are organized (as you are well aware) into a
mrpeach/ folder with various task-specific sub-folders.
historically, Pd-extended used the mrpeach/ folder as an organizational unit. (install everything you created into a flat extra/mrpeach/ folder)

however, since your libraries don't have anything in common apart from
you as the author, i would prefer to package them into separate
packages, according to the tasks they are associated with (at least
those where there i a notion of 'library' as is the case with your net-,
osc-, cmos- objects, so people can install "pd-osc" if they need OSC
communication (and don't need your net/ implementation, as they intend
to send OSC over serial/slip).

the rough idea is to have packages for
- - OSC
- - net
- - cmos
- - midifile
- - binfile
- - slip
- - str
- - oscillators
- - tabletools
- - which

the debian packages would be named accordingly, with "pd-" prepended (or "pd-mrpeach-" for generic names like "tabletools" and "oscillators", in
order to distinguish them from other libraries that could claim those
generic names with equal rights)

eventually i'm planning to have a "pd-mrpeach" meta-package that would
depend on all these sub-packages and provide a compatibility layer for
older (pd-extended) patches.

nothing is required from you to actually _do_ (e.g. code-wise), but as
hans has correctly pointed out, it would be good to know your feelings
about all this.

cheers
fgamsdr
IOhannes





On 2011-06-13 17:26, Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:

Tags: upstream

Since there is no distinct pd-osc upstream, there are no separate
releases from the upstream author only svn, and the only circulating
release is the is the 'mrpeach' library included in Pd-extended, I think
we need to first get this stuff organized upstream before uploading a
package to Debian. Have you talked with Martin Peach about it? I think
it makes sense to have pd-osc, but I think the upstream author should
determine how the code is released.  The 'mrpeach' thing could be
dropped, for example, if Martin wants it that way.

.hc




-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iEYEARECAAYFAk33ZAEACgkQkX2Xpv6ydvSN8ACeOL5AKdtccX+xl5Q0xrkoGHnt
QmAAnR1TlHVcbqkaf3DqFdXL2Qsvpm7r
=Wwm4
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----




- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

                  ¡El pueblo unido jamás será vencido!


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.12 (Darwin)
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=9/ut
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----



Reply to: