Roman Haefeli wrote:
On Wed, 2010-10-06 at 22:07 +0200, ydego...@gmail.com wrote:
but obviously the intention is to abandon some libraries
That is certainly not true. You're looking from the wrong perspective.
It's not the case that someone decides _not_ to include certain
libraries, it's more that some people are interested in doing the work
to get certain libraries included. In the case of pdp there is not even
a need for that effort, since it is already included, as IOhannes
pointed out.
this is absolutely wrong, this package is old
and doesn't respect pd-extended rules at all ...
so stop believing superficial information, thank you
( the name pd-pdp doesn't mean nothing at all )
ciao,
sevy
_______________________________________________
Pd-list@iem.at mailing list
UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management ->
http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
