On Thu, 2023-08-10 at 17:52 +0200, IOhannes m zmölnig wrote:
> so my question is: could (and should) we switch the app-id from
> "org.puredata..." to "info.puredata...", just in case we ever need to
> *prove* that "we" actually own the domain.
If there is no possible way to become owner of
I have thought about this before and yes I would do it, as long as the .info is
and will be the main domain for the foreseeable future. We should consider
adding a detection mechanism that checks if the new settings exist and, if not,
imports the old settings. Perhaps this can be a dialog which
On 10/08/2023 12:52, IOhannes m zmölnig wrote:
what do you think?
From my Windows POV i see no objection to do the change if needed.
If you can't get in touch with A.van de Ven that's bad. i think is
better that IEM can prove or handle this type of stuff.
--
Mensaje telepatico asistido
hi,
i've played a little bit with getting Pd up on flatpak (yet another
linux package manager), and currently the major showstopper is the
app-id (:facepalm:)
the app-id is just a unique identifier for an application, that is based
on some (reverese) domain scheme.
the app-id is used in a
