On Dec 1, 2009, at 5:04 AM, Frank Barknecht wrote:
Hallo, IOhannes m zmoelnig hat gesagt: // IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:
however, i don't see a really compelling reason why things should be moved from /usr/lib/pd to /usr/lib/puredata. it might be sufficient to symlink from /u/l/puredata to /u/l/pd for now. or the other way round.
/usr/lib/pd should be kept.
AFAIK not even the Debian policy requires the "lib"-directory name to be the same as the package name. It sometimes talks about "preferably" choosing the package name for certain directory names in /etc/ /usr/share or /usr/ lib, but I found no mentioning of "required". X11, vim, emacs are examples, where the directory-name is not the same as the package name. There is no "X11" package, the "emacs" package is an empty meta package and the "vim" package is just one of many vims available in Debian - and the one, that does *not* include /usr/share/vim.
To my knowledge the policy isn't violated - but I'm no Debian maintainer in training, so I may be wrong. But still the current package has no open bug about this, the pure:dyne packages use "pd" as well. Btw: What about these packages? Weren't the p:d maintainers planning to incorporate their packages into Debian proper as well? Is there cooperation between HCS' efforts and those in pure:dyne?
The pure:dyne developers have been very quiet on this topic. I've been posting here in the hopes that they would join in the conversation. pd-dev seems like a natural place for this conversation, no?
.hc
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mistrust authority - promote decentralization. - the hacker ethic