On 3/1/21 10:16 PM, Roman Haefeli wrote:
If there are libraries only available with the v0.0-extended version, then I propose to give them a version proper,
coincidentally i wrote an email to lucas yesterday about avoiding to use the "0.0.extended" dummy-version for uploads. this was before *this* thread got momentum (although lucas alluded to my post).
since i now think that this post is of general merit, here's the gist of it:
I used the "0.0.extended" version for all libraries when I did the initial batch upload back then when deken started. this special version means two things:
- this package is the very same version of the library that was bundled
with the last release of Pd-extended
- this package *has been bundled* with the last release of Pd-extended
(it's the one library; bit-for-bit identical) note the use of "package" which really refers to the binary files (rather than just the version)
now the first meaning ("same library version") has a very profane background: we uploaded several hundreds of packages, and there was no sane way to get the correct version number for each of them (some had a meta.pd file, others didn't; nobody felt like doing a manual investigation for all these packages).
the idea was, that whenever somebody as not happy with the binaries (e.g. because they fail with newer versions of Pd; or because there's a new architecture,...) they would investigate in the real version of the library and use that for uploading. (if you only upload a single library, that shouldn't be too much of a hurdle).
now i guess, I never told anybody about all those "meanings" of the "0.0.extended" version. which would explain why people like you just used that "0.0.extended" version, presumably (only) meaning that "this is built from the same sources as the other '0.0.extended' packages of this library".
obviously the 2nd meaning of the dummy-version ("this binary was bundled with Pd-extended") is just plain wrong four your uploads (as there haven't been a Windows64 version of Pd-extended, so these versions just didn't exist). the 1st meaning *might* be true for your packages, but that is really hard to tell, as the batch-uploaded '0.0.extended' packages lack sources.
gfdmasr IOhannes
PS lucas might notice that I changed a couple of "we" to "me" - so i take full blame for all the decisions.