On May 24, 2011, at 4:02 AM, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:

Hash: SHA1

On 2011-05-23 00:59, Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:

Would it make sense to also add the versions since it won't build with
the 'puredata' package 0.43 or newer, something like:

puredata-dev | puredata << 0.43

i believe this is a bug in the packaging, and is fixed in current git
(solution: make "puredata" _depend_ on "puredata-dev" as well)

i was only waiting to ping paul to upload the package, but afaik he is
currently on a sailing trip.

I think if he's away for a while, this would be a good case for a NMU, once we get everything sorted out. Piem does seem to disappear for long stretches. I think we could probably get someone in pkg- multimedia to do it.

Also about puredata-core, it has a menu item set by puredata- core.menu. That means that you could have puredata-core installed without the GUI,
but having it launched from the Menu.  Since the .desktop file is
puredata.desktop, I propose moving the .menu item to puredata.menu
also. I think it would be confusing and not useful to have a menu item that used to launch a GUI, but now might launch something that might not
have a GUI.

right now "puredata" does not provide any files itself, only
dependencies to it's sub-packages.
lintian will not like it, if there is a binary in the .menu/.desktop
files that is not provided by the package itself. given the dependency
structure, we could do a lintian override though.
i'm wondering whether it wouldn't be better to put the menu into
puredata-gui and launch pd-gui instead.

Yes! That's the best way to handle it. I forgot that part of the idea of pd 0.43 was to make it so when you launch Pd using 'pd-gui', it will not launch an new instance for files opened via file associations/double-clicking. It does this automatically if the files are associated to open using 'pd-gui' rather than 'pd'. So the .menu and file associations should all use 'pd-gui'.

Also, FYI, I pushed a commit adding Comment= fields to puredata.desktop.

About puredata-extra, I am planning on making the 'pdextended' package
"Recommend: puredata-extra" instead of including the same source and
binaries. Would it be ok to change the Depends: for puredata-extra to:

puredata-core (= ${binary:Version}) | pd

hmm, the split is mainly there because you elaborated on having extra/
separately. what made you change your mind?

apart from that: puredata-extra would have to be reworked into pd- extra, in order to make it useable by "pd" without breaking the pd vs puredata
separation. (if you want to make pdx search objects in
/usr/lib/puredata/extra, then we could have simply left everything in

furthermore: i think that the above depends stanza sounds like a bad
idea, as it would allow to have puredata-extra_0.43.0-4 to be installed with either exactly puredata-core_0.43.0-4 or with pdextended-0.39.4-1;
so if we change, i think it should be:
Depends: pd

finally: actually there is no need to fuddle around with the
dependencies. if "pdextended" _recommends_ "puredata-extra", you can
install pdextended just fine, even with puredata-extra. puredata-extra
would pull in some more dependencies (that is: puredata-core) but i
guess that pdextended will by default pull in a thousand packages anyhow :-)

OK, makes sense, let's leave puredata-extra as it is. Thanks for reminding me of what I said before :)



I have always wished for my computer to be as easy to use as my telephone; my wish has come true because I can no longer figure out how to use my telephone." --Bjarne Stroustrup (creator of C++)

pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list

Reply via email to