On Thu, 2011-09-15 at 11:36 -0400, Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote: > On Thu, 2011-09-15 at 10:01 +0200, Roman Haefeli wrote: > > On Thu, 2011-09-15 at 09:44 +0200, Ingo wrote: > > > The reason why I didn't make an abstraction for the "debyte" is that I > > > wanted to keep the number of files and dependencies as low as possible. I > > > think this was the original idea of the rewrite, right? > > > > Yeah, exactly. I would like to be able to install [arduino] also on a > > plain Pd-vanilla setup with the least amount of additional effort. > > [comport] will always be needed, of course. > > Well, now you can and trivially install all but one of the dependencies > for 'puredata' aka Pd vanilla using: > > apt-get install pd-cyclone pd-mapping pd-zexy > > Only moocow is missing. I'd bet it'll be much less work to package > moocow then to rewrite and manage a fork of arduino.pd.
I'm not sure about this, but I mostly agree with you. When packaging arduino as a pd-lib.deb, it would be trivial to add the dependencies. However, I find I found some rather ugly stuff inside [arduino] that I definitely wanted to get rid of, such as [prepend] from cyclone. On the long run, I don't see the point in having two different [arduino] classes to be maintained. If at some point, improvements of both can be merged to one class, I'm all for it. Even if it means re-adding some externals. But for stuff that is very trivial to do with vanilla classes, I don't see the point in using externals. And no, I really don't think that adds a lot of maintenance load to the class. Roman _______________________________________________ Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list