Depends on whether that abstraction is meant to be an application or an object. If its meant to be an object, like RRADical stuff, for example, it should go into "extra" with the rest of the objects, and have a help patch in 5.reference. The list-abs stuff are objects written in Pd, so they should be treated any other Pd objects.
As for applications, like demo patches, examples, etc., I am planning on making an "Examples" tree that included the example trees from Gem, PMPD, etc., as well as anything else along those lines. The RRADical showcase is another example.
I am now in the process of creating the cross-platform extended package maker, basically a port of the Pd.app stuff, with some new stuff thrown in. My current idea is to make a Makefile for CVS/abstractions and CVS/doc which would build into a "build" directory like "externals". Then the "abstractions" repository in CVS would basically be a repository of code that uses the common build method, kind of like "externals", though that's more mixed up.
.hc
On Nov 15, 2005, at 12:15 PM, james tittle wrote:
heya,
...back to working on the app_pkg stuff, and I have a question: how are we supposed to access the internally-kept abstractions? Currently, pd++.app/Contents/Resources/extra & pd++.app/Contents/Resources/doc/5.reference seem to be the only places that are in pd's path by default, yet there is also the pd++.app/Contents/Resources/doc/abstractions folder that includes footils/list-abs, among other things: what is the strategy to access this?
...I've tried adding relative paths via the path preference (ie. ./../doc/abstractions/footils/list-abs), but that doesn't seem to work...I'd really like to solve this, because then we can have easier access to more of the "meat of the bundle", like the nusmuk/iemlib/rradical/creb/cyclone/etc. abstractions...
james
PD-dev mailing list PD-dev@iem.at http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev
________________________________________________________________________ ____
"Terrorism is not an enemy. It cannot be defeated. It's a tactic. It's about as sensible to say we declare war on night attacks and expect we're going to win that war. We're not going to win the war on terrorism." - retired U.S. Army general, William Odom