On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 00:51, Hans-Christoph Steiner <h...@at.or.at> wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-11-05 at 00:10 +0100, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:
>> On 2010-11-04 22:51, Felipe Sateler wrote:
>> >> 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.
>> >
>> > Can't it be distributed within puredata itself?
>> hmm, i'd rather have the "puredata" package follow the upstream package
>>  "pd" as closely as possible, without adding objects.
>> so people using "pd-vanilla" (that is: upstream pd without any
>> additional libraries), are 100% compatible with people using only
>> debian's "puredata" package.
>> i'd probably go for a "pd-plugins-misc" (name to be discussed) package
>> that distributes a number of _trivial_ 3rd party objects ("trivial"
>> meaning, that they don't justify separate packaging)
> We are really talking about libraries, plugins is not an appropriate
> word.  Are python objects "plugins"?  How about perl modules? Same idea
> here.
> As for packaging pd-arraysize together with other things, as far as I
> know, it is not Debian practice to lump together different upstream
> projects into a single package, I don't think its a good idea here
> either.

It is perfectly acceptable, although not common. If there are more pd
objects that are small, then just bundle them together.

Felipe Sateler

pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list

Reply via email to