Hallo, Roman Haefeli hat gesagt: // Roman Haefeli wrote: > Name (of the patch/abstraction) > (Name of the) Author > Binary deps (pd-version, externals) > Patch deps (abs-collection or single abs) > License (e.g. Gnu GPL) > > though it is also my opinion, that in the first place it is important > that things get done and in the second place how they are done, i think > that this bit information is essential and should be easy to do.
I think, there is the [pd META] format in pd-extended, which could be reused for that. For dependencies, I'd prefer [declare], as that gives a bit more functionality and may give more in its evolution. For now it would just contain the meta-information. For a license I actually would prefer the same license for everything in that collection: the Pd license. But that's of course a hairy issue. In general I think, this META information would be good to have and it could be added or checked by the one checking in the abstractions to the CVS. Some other things: A tricky issue may be abstractions that use other custom abstractions. I think, a subdirectory for these sub-abstractions would be good to have, so that the namespace doesn't get polluted. And then: Should we discuss the namei? "dsp" may be a bit misleading or too specific. Some random ideas: "sig", "tilde", "play". Ciao -- Frank Barknecht _ ______footils.org_ __goto10.org__ _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
