In the early days of Raspberry Pi I has a need to redistribute a few
externals with PicoJockey, an ARMv6 targeted version of SliceJockey,
because Pd-extended did not explicitly support the platform.
PicoJockey includes a source tree with subsets of some external
libraries plus a custom build system, and a binary build for ARMv6.

This was in the pre-deken era, and while it would be technically
possible to distribute PicoJockey (or any Pd project) in such a format
via deken, I seriously doubt whether that it is a good idea. Libraries
in deken are versioned, and so would be a project that depends on
libraries. A project can only specify it's own version in the deken
interface. Now imagine a project silently installs unspecified
versions of other packages, or subsets thereof? Even when they reside
in a subtree of the project, they will conflict with 'official'
versions if not identical. This can be a source of confusion and
frustration no matter how well you know Pd.

I perfectly understand your desire for a 'one click buy', Liam. That's
what I wanted for SliceJockey and PicoJockey as well. It's good for
your project and also for the reputation of Pd when things work out of
the box. But we have to recognize the fragility of a dependency chain.
Even in the heyday of Pd-extended a library update could wreck your
'one click' project and leave people puzzled why it stopped working.
In my experience, a Pd project with 'app convenience' is an illusion
that can hold for only a while. When a project suggests to be
self-containing, users are unaware of dependencies and clueless if
something breaks.

Externals are plugins no matter how they are distributed. Be sure to
accurately and conspiciously document all dependencies of your
project, on your project page and in the distribution. Then if
something breaks, people will hopefully remember to check dependencies
and come back to your project page for info or updates. Some
dependencies are more susceptible to break than others (e.g.
unmaintained / orphaned / complicated / debated / forked libs).

You could use various distribution methods according to target
audience and release cycle. Why not start with an alpha test release
for vanilla + deken? If your project provides clear dependency
statements and include mechanisms like [declare] objects, your alpha
testers should be settled with a few deken clicks instead of just one.
If not... oh yeah... now I remember your problem with one external not
being up to date in deken. Is that a consideration for 'repackaging'?

Katja


On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 5:12 AM, Liam Goodacre <liamg_uw@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Hi all
>
>
> I'm starting to think about how to distribute the Context sequencer when it
> is ready (hopefully the day is not very far away).  Context is an
> abstraction, but it relies heavily on externals*. Ideally, I want it up on
> Deken, but I'm not sure what to do about the external packages. Is it
> feasible / acceptable to bundle all the externals I'm using into a folder
> and distribute them along with the main Context package? I'm hoping that
> this way the whole thing could be downloaded and installed in one click, but
> I want to make sure that there aren't any complications or license issues.
> Has external repackaging been done before?
>
>
> *The external libraries I'm using are:
>
>
> -cyclone
>
> -zexy
>
> -iemguts (including initbang)
>
> -moocow
>
> -flatgui
>
> -list-abs
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list
> UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management ->
> https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
>