On Apr 13, 2006, at 7:04 AM, João Miguel Pais wrote:
Now its dying on PDP. I don't know much about PDP, and using
tigital's binary for Pd-extended on Mac OS X. It shouldn't be
enabled.Around line 121 in externals/Makefile, it should look like this:
ifeq ($(OS_NAME),darwin) LIB_TARGETS += hid else
I am guessing yours looks like this:
ifeq ($(OS_NAME),darwin) LIB_TARGETS += hid pdp else
Remove the "pdp" if you want to compile the rest. The version in
CVS does not have the "pdp" there.it was already in order.
Anyway I think that this whole thread might have been a mistake. I
just went to your site (H-C) and downloaded and installed the
latest pd-extended. And it works (well, I didn't check everything,
pdp wasn't there).What I was trying to do in the beggining was to going to cvs, and
to compile the latest pd version, with all abstractions, externals,
etc. integrated into it. Which didn't work at first. (or maybe not.
since I have also other things to do than play the linux- installation maze game, sometimes I can't keep anymore with it,
even I have the whole thread documented here)So, now I have a working pd-extended, and a not-working pd-cvs- version. My question would be:
- is there a way to sucessfully compile the whole cvs thing from
itself? (which would be feasable for me) or it is too much trouble?
- if not, I would try to keep the working pd-ext, and symlink/path/
whatever to the pd-cvs folders which aren't included (abstractions,
etc)
- which of this choices would be more adequate? or is there a
better one?
(I'm sorry to be going around, but this has been temendously
frustrating and a waste of time. now I recall why I already a few
times went away from linux - but this time I'm worrying only with
pd and not with other general system problems. thanks ubuntu for
that, I guess)By the way, I just opened my gui-ed abstr, and noticed that in X it
looks quite different from xp (not so pretty). Is there anyone who
has tried it on both machines and looked good? Or is it a font
issue, which is also too complicated/not worth it to solve?
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.
.hc
"I have the audacity to believe that peoples everywhere can have
three meals a day for their bodies, education and culture for their
minds, and dignity, equality and freedom for their spirits."
- Martin Luther King, Jr.