On Nov 4, 2010, at 9:34 AM, Roman Haefeli wrote:

On Thu, 2010-11-04 at 13:03 +0000, Luca Falavigna wrote:

quoting from your debian/copyright:
   License: This code is too trivial to have a licence or copyright.

Is it really necessary to distribute it in a standalone source package?

Yeah, I also think that this is questionable. I'm not the right person
to make decisions, but my opinion is that we (Pd people) should take the
chance now that we're pushing Pd libraries to Debian to try to make it
as clean as possible, i.e. try not to clutter the pd-lib space with too many trivial single-object libraries. Since the code is so trivial that
it's not even worth being covered by a license, why not incorporating
into an existing library, hcs for instance?

Yeah, it is annoying for sure. The problem is that this particular object is widely used and has been distributed and used like this since 2003ish.

On an unrelated note: the help-file contains an object [pddp/ pddplink],
but pd-array does not depend on a pd-pddp (which does not yet exist).
Personally, I think that the link in the help-file does not justify to
pull another dependency in, which is otherwise not necessary for
pd-arraysize to work properly at all. Unless we agree to make pddp a
standard within help-files, I'd propose to get rid of pddp links in
help-files of debianized Pd libraries.

Thanks for the bug report. I'm ready to submit pd-pddp to Debian, so that'll happen soon. Then I'll add the pd-pddp dependency to pd- arraysize. If you have the time, please file a bug report, but I also have it on my personal TODO list.



I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. - General Smedley Butler

pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list

Reply via email to