(also forgot to send to the list) Hi,
> 1. Why are you compiling gem separately when pd-l2ork compiles it for > you > and includes it with its binary package? > > 2. Why are you trying to use pd-vanilla includes with pd-l2ork (unless > you > are using pd instead of pd-l2ork)? The two are not compatible and as I > indicated on the site with a huge warning box mixing the two will > cause > crashes and unexpected behavior. I use pd-vanilla or pd-extended depending on the project I work on. Since l2ork seems super robust, I'd like to give it a try. For this particular case, the idea was to test whever plain Gem fails to install the .so files or not. So I build it with vanilla as a general testcase. I don't mean to use this build on l2ork or extended. While I'm typing, my computer is building a fresh copy of pd-l2ork with PKGBUILD to see if everything is ok. Also I will take this as a occasion to see what files are in conflict with extended. It seems it's just cyclist, pdsend and pdreceive. So maybe just by renaming these it's possible to have pd-vanilla, pd-extended and pd-l2ork installed in /usr on the same system (how I do that at the moment is have all flavors in /opt/pd-<flavor>). I hope this makes my intentions clearer. -- Charles _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
