On 08/13/2010 02:37 AM, Felipe Sateler wrote:
>> ping.

thanks for reviewing

> Also, the copyright file could use some updating (what are your
> contributions, etc). There are some files with copyrights other than
> yourself.

thanks. there are some contributions in some files, which i have plainly
i have updated the debian/copyright notice.

> debian/dirs seems to be redundant.

right; i have deleted it now.
it always feels like playing safe when adding directories to debian/dirs...

> Aand... short-form dh7 seems to not work correctly. since there is a
> build directory, debian/rules build says that 'build' is up to date. And
> phony targets do not seem to work with dh7.
> This means that the package ends up being built under root (in the
> binary stage), which is frowned upon by policy.

i'm not sure whether i fully understand this (i understand the part
about the policy; i don't understand the part about dh7): is this a bug
i can/should do something about or is it a bug in dh which has to be
fixed in the debhelper-package?

> Why do you install zexy into a non standard pd path?

i don't.
i install the zexy library (binaries and abstractions) into
/usr/lib/pd/extra/zexy/ which is quite the standard way to do it.
Pd will look for binaries as /usr/lib/pd/extra/<name>.pd_linux and as
/usr/lib/pd/extra/<name>/<name>.pd_linux, so it will be able to load
"zexy" without any further ado.

however, zexy bundles a number of "abstractions" (Pd interpreter files).
they used to be installed in Pd's default search path
(/usr/lib/pd/extra) and are now installed into /usr/lib/pd/extra/zexy
(both upstream and in my debian package)
- these files are mostly Pd implementations of functionality offered by
the binary library. so they are a bit redundant but can be used as
drop-in replacement, either for educational purposes or because the user
does not want to load the binary plugin
- the remaining files are just ordinary Pd files. the user will have to
add "-path /usr/lib/pd/extra/zexy" to their flags in order to use them
as they used to do with older version of zexy (e.g. the last debian
package). this is mainly to avoid namespace pollution.
figuring that in the near future a lot of new packages for Pd will make
it into Debian, we have to take care that these packages don't conflict
(providing the same files with different functionality).
hopefully this can be handled without excessive use of the "Conflicts:"

does this make sense?


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list

Reply via email to