On Sun, 2008-04-06 at 22:20 -0400, Chris McCormick wrote:
On Sun, Apr 06, 2008 at 10:53:14PM +0200, Frank Barknecht wrote:
Hallo, IOhannes m zmoelnig hat gesagt: // IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:
2: don't use the full Pd-extended but strip it down to your needs (i personally use a barebone Pd and add 3 or so libraries - i still have an overview about what is loaded...)
I'm sometimes thinking about making a pd-condensed fork of pd-extended which includes only externals and abstractions without nameclashes. ;)
Same here! It would be good to have a distribution with a maintainer who is slightly less conservative than Miller about what goes in, but still keep it really tight. Maybe it would also be cool to see a "democratized" version of Pd where externals and libraries must be first nominated and then voted in by some requisite number of positive votes. For this to work I think we'd need to have people for each major GNU/Linux distribution who would do the work of the actual packaging and submission, separate to the building (My aims are totally selfish - I'd love to be able to apt-get install this).
Even more talking with no action (sorry Roman),
no need to be sorry, because your talk is at least constructive, where mine was just a bit rude, and of course i could start working on it myself instead of asking others to do so.
after all, i am happy that there is pd-extended, so that all objects are easily available for everyone. i think the next step should indeed be a cleaned-up version, that
- doesn't have nameclashes
- only contains classes, that work (the same) on every platform
- doesn't conflict with libraries compiled as libraries. i mean
conflicts such as no/bad support for aliases and certain class names.
even more words.........
roman
Telefonate ohne weitere Kosten vom PC zum PC: http://messenger.yahoo.de