Are there any .debs of pd-0.37 around yet? I need to install pd-0.37 on 14 debian boxes by Saturday, so debs would make that much easier...
I can compile them myself if I have the debian/ folder with all its stuff. It would be great if this was in the CVS.
.hc
________________________________________________________________________ ____
Man has survived hitherto because he was too ignorant to know how to realize his wishes. Now that he can realize them, he must either change them, or perish. -William Carlos Williams
Hallo, Hans-Christoph Steiner hat gesagt: // Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
Are there any .debs of pd-0.37 around yet? I need to install pd-0.37 on 14 debian boxes by Saturday, so debs would make that much easier...
The package is now called "puredata". It's in unstable at least.
I can compile them myself if I have the debian/ folder with all its stuff. It would be great if this was in the CVS.
I think it should, too!
ciao
On Fri, 26 Sep 2003, Frank Barknecht wrote:
Hallo, Hans-Christoph Steiner hat gesagt: // Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
Are there any .debs of pd-0.37 around yet? I need to install pd-0.37 on 14 debian boxes by Saturday, so debs would make that much easier...
The package is now called "puredata". It's in unstable at least.
I can compile them myself if I have the debian/ folder with all its stuff. It would be great if this was in the CVS.
I think it should, too!
I wanted to keep the pd CVS clean from "unnecessary" stuff, but I can put it there if ppl. want it.
Guenter
On Friday, Sep 26, 2003, at 10:32 America/New_York, Frank Barknecht wrote:
Hallo, guenter geiger hat gesagt: // guenter geiger wrote:
I wanted to keep the pd CVS clean from "unnecessary" stuff, but I can put it there if ppl. want it.
Like in build/linux/debian?
I'd say that it would be easiest if it was just checked in to where it should go: pd/debian, but just checked into the devel_0_37 branch. Then there will be less to go wrong, people can just:
cvs co pd && cd pd && dpkg-buildpackage -b
and have a fresh puredata-0.37.deb. Maybe you could submit that dir to Miller to be included in the src distro? Isn't the RPM stuff included or is that separate?
.hc
________________________________________________________________________ ____
There is no way to peace, peace is the way. -A.J. Muste
Hallo, Hans-Christoph Steiner hat gesagt: // Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
I'd say that it would be easiest if it was just checked in to where it should go: pd/debian, but just checked into the devel_0_37 branch. Then there will be less to go wrong, people can just:
cvs co pd && cd pd && dpkg-buildpackage -b
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)
ciao
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.
Guenter
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
-
Frank Barknecht -
guenter geiger -
Hans-Christoph Steiner