Re: [PD-dev] packaging the pddp docs

28 Jun 2011


      --- On Tue, 6/28/11, Hans-Christoph Steiner hans@at.or.at wrote:
...
From: Hans-Christoph Steiner hans@at.or.at
Subject: Re: [PD-dev] packaging the pddp docs
To: "Jonathan Wilkes" jancsika@yahoo.com
Cc: pd-dev@iem.at
Date: Tuesday, June 28, 2011, 6:58 PM
On Jun 28, 2011, at 12:51 PM, Jonathan Wilkes wrote:
...
--- On Tue, 6/28/11, Hans-Christoph Steiner hans@at.or.at
wrote:
...
...
From: Hans-Christoph Steiner hans@at.or.at
Subject: Re: [PD-dev] packaging the pddp docs
To: "Jonathan Wilkes" jancsika@yahoo.com
Cc: pd-dev@iem.at
Date: Tuesday, June 28, 2011, 6:33 PM
On Jun 28, 2011, at 11:43 AM, Jonathan Wilkes
wrote:
...
...
...
--- On Tue, 6/28/11, Hans-Christoph Steiner
hans@at.or.at
...
...
wrote:
...
...
From: Hans-Christoph Steiner hans@at.or.at
Subject: Re: [PD-dev] packaging the pddp
docs
...
...
...
...
To: "Jonathan Wilkes" jancsika@yahoo.com
Cc: pd-dev@iem.at
Date: Tuesday, June 28, 2011, 5:11 PM
On Jun 28, 2011, at 12:55 AM, Jonathan
Wilkes
...
...
wrote:
...
...
...
--- On Tue, 6/28/11, Hans-Christoph
Steiner
...
...
hans@at.or.at
...
...
wrote:
...
> From: Hans-Christoph Steiner
hans@at.or.at
...
...
...
...
...
> Subject: Re: [PD-dev] packaging
the pddp
...
...
docs
...
...
...
> To: "Jonathan Wilkes" jancsika@yahoo.com
> Cc: pd-dev@iem.at
> Date: Tuesday, June 28, 2011, 6:27
AM
...
...
...
...
...
>
> On Jun 27, 2011, at 6:45 PM,
Jonathan
...
...
Wilkes
...
...
wrote:
...
>
>>
>>
>> --- On Mon, 6/27/11,
Hans-Christoph
...
...
Steiner
...
...
hans@at.or.at
...
> wrote:
>>
>>> From: Hans-Christoph
Steiner
...
...
hans@at.or.at
...
...
...
>>> Subject: [PD-dev]
packaging the
...
...
pddp docs
...
...
...
>>> To: pd-dev@iem.at
>>> Date: Monday, June 27,
2011, 9:21
...
...
PM
...
...
...
>>>
>>> Now that the core Pd docs
(i.e.
...
...
...
...
/usr/lib/pd/doc/*)
...
> are
>>> split out into a
>>> separate Debian package, I
think
...
...
it could
...
...
make
...
> sense to
>>> package the PDDP
>>> docs in a kind of mirror
or
...
...
replacement
...
...
package.
...
>>> Something like
>>> pddp-doc.  Jonathan,
in
...
...
particular, I
...
...
was
...
> thinking
>>> that since you have
>>> wanted to work on all the
patches
...
...
there,
...
...
we could
...
> set it up
>>> so the
>>> pddp-doc package mirrors
the
...
...
whole
...
...
...
> /usr/lib/pd/doc*
>>> directory and patch
>>> structure, have this in
SVN, git,
...
...
or
...
...
whatever
...
>>> somewhere.  Then
people
...
...
...
...
...
>>> could choose the pddp-doc
package
...
...
if they
...
...
so
...
> choose.
>>
>> The PDDP docs I did are all
for
...
...
vanilla
...
...
objects
...
> (exceptions are
>> expr family, and the other
"vanilla"
...
...
...
...
extras).  If
...
> a new user clicks
>> "Help" on a vanilla object, it
should
...
...
show the
...
...
revised
...
> PDDP help
>> patch by default.
>>
>> So instead of what you
propose, please
...
...
make
...
...
something
...
> like a
>> legacy-vanilla-help package.
That way,
...
...
if
...
> someone really prefers
>> the old docs, they can still
find
...
...
them, and we
...
...
won't
...
> waste new users' time
>> by forcing them to use
outdated and
...
...
...
...
unmaintained docs
...
> (until they figure
>> out they're supposed to
download a
...
...
separate
...
...
package
...
> for the current
>> vanilla help patches, which
nobody has
...
...
to do
...
...
for any
...
> of the external
>> packages).
>>
>> -Jonathan
>
>
> I agree that the PDDP docs are
much
...
...
better, that's
...
...
why I
...
> want to get them out there more.
Part of
...
...
packaging is
...
> representing the upstream as it is
and
...
...
letting the
...
...
user
...
> decide.  So I think it makes
sense to
...
...
keep
...
...
puredata-doc
...
> as what's included in the
official
...
...
tarball.
...
...
As for
...
> Pd-extended, I think it should
still use
...
...
the PDDP
...
...
docs, so
...
> like you say, showing the PDDP
docs by
...
...
default.
...
...
...
Ok.
So we just need a plan of attack.  If
you can
...
...
lead up
...
...
this project, I
will help as much as I can.  Do you
want to
...
...
include
...
...
the whole docs
tree in the doc/pddp SVN?
I'm already kind of doing that with pd-l2ork.
I've revised Miller's
...
control/audio/ds tutorials.  Pd-l2ork has fixed
the crasher bug when
...
a patch closes itself, so I've got a navigation
toolbar in those
...
tutorials
that is currently incompatible with
pd-extended/vanilla.
I had no idea.  Ico seems to work on his own.  It
would be great to  
have those bug fixes submitted to the patch tracker. 
The patch  
tracker is what Miller, IOhannes, Martin Peach, me and
others use for  
keeping track of patches that are meant to go into
pure-data core.
He's also working off 0.42 currently, so submitting to the 
tracker would be pointless.  I think someone was working 
to port the changes forward to 0.43, but Ico is currently 
on vacation and I'm not sure where they are in the process.
...
...
...
Or something
else?  It
...
...
seems to me the
easiest would be to start a separate
repository
...
...
for them,
...
...
like on
SourceForge, pddp is available: http://sourceforge.net/projects/ 
pddp
Or we could reorganize doc/pddp in the
pure-data
...
...
SVN.
...
...
.hc
Since Pd-extended and Pd-l2ork already use the
PDDP
...
...
docs, the only thing
...
we're talking about here is providing PDDP
docs for
...
...
people who use
...
vanilla, and that's a simple commit.  So
I don't
...
...
see why I have to head up
...
some new project and learn Debian packaging in
order
...
...
to meander toward (or
...
around) that goal.
Its not a new project. I see it as a better
representation
...
...
of what's currently happening.  You are doing
great
...
...
work with the PDDP docs, I think we can make the
structure
...
...
of that project work better for you.  Having
it as a
...
...
distinct entity means you are less encumbered by
others when
...
...
making decisions about what should happen with
PDDP.
...
...
That distinct entity can be either a folder in the
pure-data
...
...
SVN, a separate SourceForge project, or whatever
we think is
...
...
easiest.  I think one of the first two
options would
...
...
work well.
I'm happy to do all of the Debian packaging, that
part
...
...
would be easy for me.
So what is it you want me to do?
To start with, choose a repository to work out of. 
Shall we just  
reorganize the doc/pddp folder in pure-data SVN?  Then
make that the  
home of your PDDP work, and I'll package it for Debian, and
make sure  
the new layout works in Pd-extended.
That works.  Should it be merged with the current pddp libdir?
...
.hc
...
...
...
The only problem is with pddplink and
helplink
...
...
dependencies, which should
...
just be included in vanilla as internal
objects.
...
...
Is there a good reason
...
why they aren't?
That's something you'd have to take up with
Miller, only he
...
...
makes the call there.  Honestly, I think
we're better
...
...
off keeping things as distinct libraries.
Miller has
...
...
limited time to spend on Pd, so the more stuff
that's in Pd,
...
...
the thinner his time is spread.  pd-pddp is
in
...
...
Debian/Ubuntu/Mint etc.  For someone who
knows
...
...
Fedora/RPM packaging, it would be really easy to
package
...
...
it.  Then PDDP is included in Pd-extended
already. So
...
...
that means for the vast majority of users,
pddplink and
...
...
helplink are already part of the standard
install.
...
...
...
Maybe my time would be better spent making a
"gui"
...
...
plugin that just grabs
...
all the stuff that should be core pd but isn't
and
...
...
installs it:
...
revised/maintained docs, [initbang],
[closebang],
...
...
[pddplink], [helplink],
...
$@, etc.
That's done, that's called Pd-extended ;)
.hc
...
-Jonathan
...

...
...
...
...
Using ReBirth is like trying to play an
808 with a
...
...
long
...
...
stick.    -
David Zicarelli

...
...
The arc of history bends towards justice.
    - Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

"A cellphone to me is just an opportunity to be irritated
wherever you  
are." - Linus Torvalds

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

Re: [PD-dev] packaging the pddp docs