On Friday, Feb 28, 2003, at 13:36 America/New_York, guenter geiger wrote:

On Fri, 28 Feb 2003, Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:

...

...

I don't have any objections. I'd like it. Did you check out the SF build-farm? Maybe we could automate some binary building...

To start, I'll just put up some existing binaries, just to get the ball rolling. But the build-farm is definitely a good idea, but I don't have the time just yet to look too deeply into it.

But first, one of the pure-data.sf.net needs to grant me access to the Add/Edit Releases section so I can start doing this.

Ok, you have been nominated release manager. (Hope this helps you in making the release).

What do you mean with existing binaries ? I think we should recompile the stuff from CVS, otherwise we get only confusion. (I know .... nobody has the time).

By existing binaries, I mean things like Adam's MacOS X packages. I thought I'd try to see if there are any recent RPMs available. I could also post the DeMuDi DEBs. Plus I thought I'd clean up and zip up my windows install and write an install.bat for it. (anyway have a pd-extended binary for Windows?)

At my university (http://itp.nyu.edu), there is a lot of interest in using pd, but many of them barely know what the word 'compile' means. So I am hosting a pd meeting to get everyone up to installed and running, and to start playing with it. In the process, I realized I couldn't say "Go to this URL, and you can download pd". I had to list all of the various places for the various OSes that people are running, and all of the different packages.

So its not a solution, its just a start. I figure a working but not so pretty package is better than none at all. Adam's packages have received a very good reception at ITP. I'd like to help out the Windows end of things too, since there is demand.

.hc