--- 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
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by forcing them to use outdated and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? 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.
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?
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.
-Jonathan
Using ReBirth is like trying to play an 808 with a long stick. - David Zicarelli