On 2010-11-11 10:07, Roman Haefeli wrote:
pd-iemmatrix: generic single-file library depending on the metapackage 'pd'.
pdextended-iemmatrix: dedicated iemmatrix package for Pd-extended, dependent on 'pd-extendeded', compiled as one-object-per-file library.
What do you think? Does that work for everyone, Hans, IOhannes?
i agree, that the prefixes should reflect the "Depends:" clause. ("pdextended-iemmatrix" should thus 'Depend' on pd-extended)
however, i don't see, why "pd-iemmatrix-multifile" (this is _not_ a proposal for a good name) should not be able to run with "puredata" (if the user deliberately choses so), so one should not tie this package to "pdextended".
OTOH, i could imagine that there won't be acceptance from the pkg-multimedia team for including the same package twice, besides the
this we should probably discuss on the pkg-multimedia list.
fact that this is very ugly. But I don't see another way than this or consciously breaking Pd-extended.
the question is, how much will break in reality. people using [import iemmatrix] and consequently using [mtx_egg] will not experience any degradation in flavour. people wanting to use [mtx_*] with multifile have a stale flavour anyhow.
anyhow, until pd-hexloader is packaged, this discussion is quite moot anyhow. i don't think that switching from single-binary to multi-binary in the package would cause much trouble.
PS: i knew there was another library i should have packaged for debian.
I didn't mean to take that away from you. Before I started I wanted to point out possible issues.
though now i have created some ITPs for various iem-packages, including iemmatrix ;-)
mcvasdr IOhannes