-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 11/28/2010 10:17 PM, Martin Peach wrote:
On 2010-11-28 15:57, Roman Haefeli wrote:
That's another reason they should be in net instead of mrpeach: it seems that having my name on the folder inhibits others from improving the objects, so we end up with multiple parallel incompatible objects, in this case with the same names.
a) my intention when writing iemnet was to maintain compatibility with mrpeachnet (with silently dropping things which i find either ugly hackz to circumvent problems in the current implementation (e.g the "unblock" message) or things that have nothing todo with networking (the possibility to directly send the contents of files)
in most cases they should thus be exchangeablee
b) my intention as a debian packager was to provide both packages as "pd-iemnet" and "pd-mrpeachnet", not making any of those the "canonical" library. i still think thaat both share sufficient parts of their interface to make them be called "compatible", so i would also make both of them provide "pd-net", allowing people to use them as "net/udpsend" (if they can stick to the common API) or as "mrpeach/net/udpsend" if they cannot live without sending entire files directly.
i haven't done the actual packaging yet (given my currently available time...)
mfgasdr IOhannes
PS: and yes, i agree that the packages should be grouped by functionality.