On Jun 18, 2008, at 3:12 PM, Mathieu Bouchard wrote: > On Sat, 7 Jun 2008, Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote: > >> I think that gridflow would probably be more easily maintained >> outside of Pd-extended, for now at least. > > GridFlow is not in a situation much different from Gem or PDP. It's > just that there's more of an incentive to get Gem running in pd- > extended, than there is to get GridFlow running. I'm talking about > today's GridFlow, which is quite Rubyless. I think that basically > you say that because you simply don't feel like handling it. > > Now I have a contract item that is to include GridFlow in pd- > extended, or if that fails, at least to make a version of pd- > extended that has GridFlow in it. It is likely that it gets done in > June, perhaps even in the next few days.
These days, I think we should try to make it easy to install and manage external libraries. Then once things are very stable, they should be included in Pd-extended. That's what I've learned from my experience so far. And honestly, I don't want to deal with more build issues, I am very tired of it. So if you want to include it, please don't expect me to do it, especially since you are getting paid and I am not. .hc ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ---- If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem. _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
