On Friday, Sep 26, 2003, at 13:55 America/New_York, guenter geiger wrote:
On Fri, 26 Sep 2003, Frank Barknecht wrote:
I'd vote for keeping packaging stuff seperate. Of course it would be easiest to build packages then, but it creates an unnecessaty mess sooner or later (when we include rpm specs in various flavours, ebuilds, debian, dmg-building tools, windows installers and so on)
We could make another module with this stuff, .. some scripting glue and it would work as seamless as if it were directly in the pd folder.
I think this makes the most sense. I actually did this for the Darwin/MacOS X pkg. There is a module called "darwin_pkg". This could be a good model for the rest of the packaging. So there would be things like:
darwin_pkg darwin_xpm redhat_rpm suse_rpm mandrake_rpm debian_deb windows_nsis etc. etc.
Though now upon thinking about it, we might want to make a "packages" module with all these in that.
I would love to see all of the directories have Makesfiles in them with a default target that makes all of the packages. This is the way I did darwin_pkg. All you need to do is type "make" and it will generate a complete pd distro with pd, docs, externals, etc and put all of the packages into a .dmg disk image, which is the preferred way of distributing MacOS X apps.
.hc
________________________________________________________________________ ____
"[W]e have invented the technology to eliminate scarcity, but we are deliberately throwing it away to benefit those who profit from scarcity." -John Gilmore