On Dec 1, 2009, at 5:04 AM, Frank Barknecht wrote:
Hallo,
IOhannes m zmoelnig hat gesagt: // IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:
however, i don't see a really compelling reason why things should be
moved from /usr/lib/pd to /usr/lib/puredata.
it might be sufficient to symlink from /u/l/puredata to /u/l/pd for
now.
or the other way round.
/usr/lib/pd should be kept.
AFAIK not even the Debian policy requires the "lib"-directory name
to be the
same as the package name. It sometimes talks about "preferably"
choosing the
package name for certain directory names in /etc/ /usr/share or /usr/
lib, but I
found no mentioning of "required". X11, vim, emacs are examples,
where the
directory-name is not the same as the package name. There is no
"X11" package,
the "emacs" package is an empty meta package and the "vim" package
is just one
of many vims available in Debian - and the one, that does *not*
include
/usr/share/vim.
To my knowledge the policy isn't violated - but I'm no Debian
maintainer in
training, so I may be wrong. But still the current package has no
open bug
about this, the pure:dyne packages use "pd" as well. Btw: What about
these
packages? Weren't the p:d maintainers planning to incorporate their
packages
into Debian proper as well? Is there cooperation between HCS'
efforts and those
in pure:dyne?
The pure:dyne developers have been very quiet on this topic. I've
been posting here in the hopes that they would join in the
conversation. pd-dev seems like a natural place for this
conversation, no?
.hc
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mistrust authority - promote decentralization. - the hacker ethic
_______________________________________________
Pd-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev
