hi,
don't mind about the rants. each small step helps a bit, when the process
is made this way.
Then there's the question that didn't got answered: I guess it might be
easier to compile pd-extended (since it's already above 0.39 it's ok) than
directly from cvs, or it won't be possible to keep the externals up to
date. But what's the difference from pd-extended and the cvs version? are
any externals missing, or just the outside work, like abstractions,
documentation, etc.?
I'm thinking now of using the pd-ext as main program, and in a folder
download the remaining material from cvs (and then put everything into
path). Is this a sensible method, or should I think about something else
instead?
Joao
I don't think your work was a waste of time at all, this is what we all
to towards making Pd easier to use for all. If you want some
perspective, look back at the way you used to install Pd:http://web.archive.org/web/20010404044612/http://www.pure-data.org/
The only way to get Pd was to download the sources and compile them
yourself. There is now 2000+ objects included in Pd-extended, there is
the work of perhaps 100+ people. Its big and complicated, so that means
that building it is not simple.The effort that you put into getting things working on Ubuntu and
documenting it helps us find bugs, make improvements, and future people
can start with your doc and hopefully take it further.We aim to make Debian and Ubuntu (or whatever) packages of Pd-extended,
but someone has to do the work. The more people who contribute, the
faster that will happen. These things are not hard to install by
design, but rather because no one has done the work to make it easy yet.As for successful compilation on GNU/Linux, if someone else has done it,
you can too. But yes, it can be a painful process.