IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote: > > so everythings works fine with the /usr/local/ version. > which is great, but i'd wanted to point out, that in most distros > /usr/local/ is for "manually installed" packages (that is, software > not under the distro's package management control).
Yes, that's right. I guess that's a "it just works" quick package. > as for the cyclist/pdsend/pdreceive, > [...] i wanted to stress that they should be factored out into separate > packages (which is the case already for pd/pdx, as we have > puredata-utils and cyclist as separate packages), and not be included > into the "big superpackages". > esp. if they are the only blockers to let the three flavours live > side-by-side. One thing that made me switch from debian (after years of use) to arch is how debian splits things too much (ie -core -dev -doc -utils), and takes detours (alternatives, nested includes...) and thus makes it hard to have something close to the upstream software. Most arch packages are essentially about wrapping the configure/make/make install stance with sensible paths and dependencies. So having pdsend, pdsend.pd-extended and pd.send.pd-l2ork, why not ? However I'm not religious about that, since I actually install the various pd flavors and versions by hand in /opt :). So if that makes things easier I'm with you, since using the same packaging scheme across distros is certainly good :). Regards, -- Charles _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
