2017-03-02 16:14 GMT-03:00 IOhannes m zmölnig <zmoelnig@iem.at>:

On 03/02/2017 06:37 PM, Alexandre Torres Porres wrote:
> 2017-03-02 6:13 GMT-03:00 Roman Haefeli <reduzent@gmail.com>:
>
>>
>> I thought those are meant to be transitional
>> packages that don't receive any further maintenance.
>
>
> What do you mean? Some packages are being updated and have newer versions,
> some are abandoned and only have this version from the last *pd-extended*
> up there... but they're not all meant to be either in one group or another,
> and basically anyone can work on an abandoned library and update/upload a
> new version...

i don't see how this workflow is hindered by the current state of affairs.

>
> Well, if they differ in version, it's good to know which version it is, if
> it's a newer version, an older version, the same version... I think it's
> really confusing if you do not know the version at all... you just can't
> compare! And you have to understand that most people looking at it cannot
> really grasp the idea that the package is "from the last extended package"
> - you can see the question from David as an example...

the idea is very simple:
any package that gets uploaded, should have a version that is higher
that "0.0extended".
if they have a higher version number, then deken will sort them *before*.
the idea of deken is really: the very first link should be the version
you are looking for. all other links are either outdated versions or for
different architectures.

any library that is maintained (as in: there is enough interest in it
that someone wants to do a fresh upload) *should* have a version number
attached to it. (even if it is just a date-based version).
practically all libraries *will* have a version that is higher than
0.0extended.

>
> Anyway, seems that deken can take any kind of information and display it. I
> get it that it's nice to have a clue that it's from extended, so, instead
> of "v0.0.extended" why not give it a proper version and also explicitly say
> it's from pd extended? Example suggestion;
>
> instead of "*cyclone-v0-0extended*",
> it could be "*cyclone-v0.1alpha56-pd-extended*"
>
> would that be worse somehow?
>

what's the point of adding "pd-extended" when you have a proper version
anyhow?

agree, no much point, but I was just trying to meet half way
 

but i think what roman tried to say is, that your energy could be spent
much better by uploading updated libraries into deken (with their
correct versions set), than beating a dead horse.
and if there are no updated versions, then there are no version numbers
to compare anyhow.

Not sure if that's what he meant, but what about the idea of changing the version name of libraries that we know have a proper version other than v0.0?

cyclone is one of them... I'd rather cyclone would be listed as v0.1alpha56 instead of v0-0extended. and I can work on finding out other library versions as well. I can see some do not have a version at all, 'moocow' for instance. It only has a "svn" date... it doesn't have any newer library as well. So, for those, we can just keep it like that, it makes total sense to mark them as "0.0", and maybe if it ever gets any attention or updates, it can be versioned as "0.1" and whatever.

Yeah, seems like a lot of energy to spend, but I don't have much programming skills, so, as a good latin american, I can offer my cheap manual labor for you people, it's fine.

cheers