AFAIK I use pd-l2ork exclusively, not pd. I f you find it anywhere that I'm not using that please let me know so I can fix it.
I need to check whether pdsend/receive is indeed identical before making any calls on that matter. Even then if one has to uninstall pd-utils due to conflict with pd-L2ork what would that mean to the rest of the install as far as pd-extended is concerned? Would it still work, or is pd-utils a dependency (as far as I can tell it should be a dependency because otherwise pd wouldn't work without it)?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 2013-01-22 16:30, Ivica Ico Bukvic wrote:
>
> Pd-l2ork indeed has its own folder (including pd-l2ork-externals in
> home folder and settings file). The conflict is in the /usr/bin/
> folder with binaries that share the same name but not necessarily
> code-base (I think pdsend/pdreceive and something else,
> IIRC--cannot remember off top my head).
since i trust that you haven't done anything to pdsend/pdreceive, i
guess it is save to simple use the debian-package "puredata-utils"
instead of providing your own.
alternatively, you can make your package conflict with
"puredata-utils", in order to avoid the conflict.
the other thing that comes to my mind is obviously "pd" itself.
i guess you are using "pd-l2ork" as binary name, so this wouldn't be a
problem.
(but if indeed you do use "pd" as the binary name, i suggest to switch
to "pd-l2ork" instead and eventually provide an alternative diversion
from pd to pd-l2ork, using the "update-alternatives" mechanism)
fgamsdr
IOhannes
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
iEYEARECAAYFAlD+tB4ACgkQkX2Xpv6ydvQ6MgCgig47eb9tfYKd4RJV6XZSikdt
n4UAnj+vYGd6RTuzyYsfvp8gyTmMaUeW
=qI1N
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
Pd-list@iem.at mailing list
UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list