On Nov 8, 2010, at 6:12 AM, Felipe Sateler wrote:
On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 07:57, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
On Mon, Nov 08, 2010 at 11:21:54AM +0100, Roman Haefeli wrote:
On Sun, 2010-11-07 at 14:00 -0500, Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
Additionally, expr is GPL and arraysize is public domain,
On Mon, Nov 08, 2010 at 08:12:06AM -0300, Felipe Sateler wrote:
On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 07:57, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
On Mon, Nov 08, 2010 at 11:21:54AM +0100, Roman Haefeli wrote:
On Sun, 2010-11-07 at 14:00 -0500, Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
Additionally, expr is GPL and arraysize is pu
On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 07:57, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 08, 2010 at 11:21:54AM +0100, Roman Haefeli wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, 2010-11-07 at 14:00 -0500, Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
>>>
>>> Additionally, expr is GPL and arraysize is public domain, so some people
>>> will use arraysize for
On Mon, Nov 08, 2010 at 11:21:54AM +0100, Roman Haefeli wrote:
On Sun, 2010-11-07 at 14:00 -0500, Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
Additionally, expr is GPL and arraysize is public domain, so some
people will use arraysize for that reason (i.e. a proprietary app
based on Pd like rjdj).
Good poin
On Sun, 2010-11-07 at 14:00 -0500, Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
> On Nov 5, 2010, at 7:01 PM, Roman Haefeli wrote:
> > I'm interested to hear other opinions on this.
> pd-arraysize is a special case, not an example of how to do things.
> There are plenty of simple packages in Debian, like simp
On 2010-11-07 19:57, Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
>>
>> i would sugggest to use a "Suggests: pd-pddp" at the most.
>
>
> First off, its key to mention to those not familiar with Pd: the help
> patches are fully functional scripts, not just static documentation. So
yes, thanks for making the cl
On 2010-11-07 19:57, Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
>
>> i think this is to be discussed on this list.
>> i don't know whether it's good practice, and esp. i don't know whether
>> its worse practice than creating a debian package for 2 smallish files.
>
> It is not good practice, it is a special ca
On Sun, Nov 07, 2010 at 01:57:26PM -0500, Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
On Nov 5, 2010, at 6:16 AM, IOhannes m zmölnig wrote:
On 11/05/2010 04:51 AM, Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
i'd probably go for a "pd-plugins-misc" (name to be discussed)
package that distributes a number of _trivial_ 3r
On Nov 5, 2010, at 6:16 AM, IOhannes m zmölnig wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 11/05/2010 04:51 AM, Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
i'd probably go for a "pd-plugins-misc" (name to be discussed)
package
that distributes a number of _trivial_ 3rd party objects ("trivi
On Nov 5, 2010, at 7:01 PM, Roman Haefeli wrote:
On Fri, 2010-11-05 at 19:10 -0300, Felipe Sateler wrote:
On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 00:51, Hans-Christoph Steiner
wrote:
As for packaging pd-arraysize together with other things, as far
as I
know, it is not Debian practice to lump together di
On Fri, 2010-11-05 at 19:10 -0300, Felipe Sateler wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 00:51, Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
> > 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 packa
On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 00:51, Hans-Christoph Steiner 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 distribute
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 11/05/2010 04:51 AM, Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
>>
>> 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 packa
On Fri, 2010-11-05 at 10:11 +0100, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 05, 2010 at 09:41:19AM +0100, Roman Haefeli wrote:
> >On Fri, 2010-11-05 at 00:10 +0100, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:
> >> On 2010-11-04 22:51, Felipe Sateler wrote:
> >>
> >> > Usage in a helpfile does not really warrant a Depe
On Fri, Nov 05, 2010 at 09:41:19AM +0100, Roman Haefeli wrote:
On Fri, 2010-11-05 at 00:10 +0100, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:
On 2010-11-04 22:51, Felipe Sateler wrote:
> Usage in a helpfile does not really warrant a Depends relation.
> Recommends or Suggests are better.
i couldn't have said
On Fri, 2010-11-05 at 00:10 +0100, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:
> On 2010-11-04 22:51, Felipe Sateler wrote:
>
> > Usage in a helpfile does not really warrant a Depends relation.
> > Recommends or Suggests are better.
>
> i couldn't have said this better.
>
> (esp. in this very case, where the hel
On Fri, Nov 05, 2010 at 00:10:56 (CET), IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:
> 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)
What about pd-goodies? (cf. debi
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 distribut
On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 20:10, 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
On Fri, Nov 05, 2010 at 12:10:56AM +0100, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:
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)
pd-plugins-common perhaps?
-
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 fo
On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 17:15, Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
>
> On Nov 4, 2010, at 9:34 AM, Roman Haefeli wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 2010-11-04 at 13:03 +, Luca Falavigna wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> quoting from your debian/copyright:
>>> License: This code is too trivial to have a licence or copyri
On Nov 4, 2010, at 9:34 AM, Roman Haefeli wrote:
On Thu, 2010-11-04 at 13:03 +, Luca Falavigna wrote:
Hi,
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?
Y
On Thu, 2010-11-04 at 13:03 +, Luca Falavigna wrote:
> Hi,
>
> 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.
Hi,
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?
Cheers,
Luca
___
pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list
pkg-multim
25 matches
Mail list logo
