Hallo, Roman Haefeli hat gesagt: // Roman Haefeli wrote:
Name (of the patch/abstraction) (Name of the) Author Binary deps (pd-version, externals) Patch deps (abs-collection or single abs) License (e.g. Gnu GPL)
though it is also my opinion, that in the first place it is important that things get done and in the second place how they are done, i think that this bit information is essential and should be easy to do.
I think, there is the [pd META] format in pd-extended, which could be reused for that. For dependencies, I'd prefer [declare], as that gives a bit more functionality and may give more in its evolution. For now it would just contain the meta-information.
For a license I actually would prefer the same license for everything in that collection: the Pd license. But that's of course a hairy issue.
In general I think, this META information would be good to have and it could be added or checked by the one checking in the abstractions to the CVS.
Some other things: A tricky issue may be abstractions that use other custom abstractions. I think, a subdirectory for these sub-abstractions would be good to have, so that the namespace doesn't get polluted.
And then: Should we discuss the namei? "dsp" may be a bit misleading or too specific. Some random ideas: "sig", "tilde", "play".
Ciao
Frank Barknecht _ ______footils.org_ __goto10.org__