On 9 Nov 2005, at 10:59, Lorenz Schori wrote:
i like this idea too. what about darwinports? btw. both of this package management systems do have a mechanism to place .app packages into /Applications. this option might be of interest too. i don't know the internals neither of .deb nor of ports and i don't have time to dive into it now - just started with my studies. for packaging an extended/++ self containing pd version this approach might be of interest too.
I'm going to go through the fink packaging tutorial. I have slightly more faith in it than darwinports, so I'll start there. If anyone else is looking at the same time, please shout!
just think about this possible scenario:
- install pd + externals via package management (fink/darwinports)
+1
- run a script which grasps all the abstractions and .pd_darwins +
docs.
From where? I mean once you've installed with 'fink install pd' or whatever, how do you envision running the script?
I was just thinking of one big Pd.app being dumped in /Applications, with all needed externals pre-built.
- run a script which grasps all the needed dylib's from the
distribution (using "otool -L")
Interesting.
this mechanism could be extended to provide a way to easily deploy custom Pd.app which just include needed externals and possibly have patches autostarted.
Ok so we could have CLI instructions such as:
'pdadmin myinstallation'
And output would be a myinstallation.app/ directory with pd binaries, externals, etc? I guess CLI options to that would be nice. A bit like Django and Rails options.
Not sure though, how one would go about building this.
@hans+james. this is no rant against you and i don't want to just create another build system. i'm just thinking about how pd on mac could be more conveniant for (doubleclick)users AND (cli)developers :)
And yes, why not rely on the current build systems?
Anyway, I think it's a good idea overall!
d
-- # David Plans Casal
problem.each { |day| assert_nil(spoon) }