Hi!
Does anyone know why the iemguts library is at different version levels in Deken, depending on whether you're running PD on Windows, Linux or Mac OS? For Windows, it shows v0.2.1, but for Linux and Mac OS, it shows 0.0.
The reason I ask is that I developed some patches using iemguts/initbang under Windows, but it seems initbang doesn't exist in v0.0 for Linux.
Is v0.2.1 available in binary format for Linux, or do I have to compile from the source?
Thanks, David.
Have you tried purr data? if it doesn't work, let's make it work there...
v0-0extended is a version name I also find very confusing... it means it is from Pd Extended as it was when it was last released in the Pd 0.43 Extended version.
So, whatever was in Extended when it dies, is up in deken as "*v0-0extended*" but I think it would make much more sense to put these libraries there with their actual version number.
cheers
2017-02-27 14:30 GMT-03:00 David dfkettle@gmail.com:
Hi!
Does anyone know why the iemguts library is at different version levels in Deken, depending on whether you're running PD on Windows, Linux or Mac OS? For Windows, it shows v0.2.1, but for Linux and Mac OS, it shows 0.0.
The reason I ask is that I developed some patches using iemguts/initbang under Windows, but it seems initbang doesn't exist in v0.0 for Linux.
Is v0.2.1 available in binary format for Linux, or do I have to compile from the source?
Thanks, David.
Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> https://lists.puredata.info/ listinfo/pd-list
On 2017-03-02 03:49, Alexandre Torres Porres wrote:
but I think it would make much more sense to put these libraries there with their actual version number.
thank you for volunteering in finding out the actual version numbers of ~100 libraries.
i will happily rename the existing libraries, just send me a computer-parsable file with the librarynames (as found in deken) and their actual version numbers.
fgamsdr IOhannes
2017-03-02 5:25 GMT-03:00 IOhannes m zmoelnig zmoelnig@iem.at:
thank you for volunteering in finding out the actual version numbers of ~100 libraries.
hey, I can actually do that, count me in ;)
On Don, 2017-03-02 at 09:25 +0100, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:
On 2017-03-02 03:49, Alexandre Torres Porres wrote:
but I think it would make much more sense to put these libraries there with their actual version number.
thank you for volunteering in finding out the actual version numbers of ~100 libraries.
i will happily rename the existing libraries, just send me a computer-parsable file with the librarynames (as found in deken) and their actual version numbers.
Please don't. I'm happy that you went through the trouble to port all(most?) of Pd-extended to Deken to make the transition for Pd- extended users easier. But I thought those are meant to be transitional packages that don't receive any further maintenance. I think it would be confusing to have proper version numbers in both, the transitional packages and the actively maintained ones, since the Pd-extended packages might not only differ in version but also in packaging format (one-file-per-object libraries vs. multi-object-single-file libraries).
Roman
2017-03-02 6:13 GMT-03:00 Roman Haefeli reduzent@gmail.com:
I thought those are meant to be transitional packages that don't receive any further maintenance.
What do you mean? Some packages are being updated and have newer versions, some are abandoned and only have this version from the last *pd-extended* up there... but they're not all meant to be either in one group or another, and basically anyone can work on an abandoned library and update/upload a new version...
I think it would be confusing to have proper version numbers in both, the transitional packages and the actively maintained ones, since the Pd-extended packages might not only differ
Well, if they differ in version, it's good to know which version it is, if it's a newer version, an older version, the same version... I think it's really confusing if you do not know the version at all... you just can't compare! And you have to understand that most people looking at it cannot really grasp the idea that the package is "from the last extended package"
- you can see the question from David as an example...
in version but also in packaging format (one-file-per-object libraries vs. multi-object-single-file libraries).
that's really uncommon, but why does it matter? You can still load and install the library.
Anyway, seems that deken can take any kind of information and display it. I get it that it's nice to have a clue that it's from extended, so, instead of "v0.0.extended" why not give it a proper version and also explicitly say it's from pd extended? Example suggestion;
instead of "*cyclone-v0-0extended*", it could be "*cyclone-v0.1alpha56-pd-extended*"
would that be worse somehow?
cheers
On 03/02/2017 06:37 PM, Alexandre Torres Porres wrote:
2017-03-02 6:13 GMT-03:00 Roman Haefeli reduzent@gmail.com:
I thought those are meant to be transitional packages that don't receive any further maintenance.
What do you mean? Some packages are being updated and have newer versions, some are abandoned and only have this version from the last *pd-extended* up there... but they're not all meant to be either in one group or another, and basically anyone can work on an abandoned library and update/upload a new version...
i don't see how this workflow is hindered by the current state of affairs.
Well, if they differ in version, it's good to know which version it is, if it's a newer version, an older version, the same version... I think it's really confusing if you do not know the version at all... you just can't compare! And you have to understand that most people looking at it cannot really grasp the idea that the package is "from the last extended package"
- you can see the question from David as an example...
the idea is very simple: any package that gets uploaded, should have a version that is higher that "0.0extended". if they have a higher version number, then deken will sort them *before*. the idea of deken is really: the very first link should be the version you are looking for. all other links are either outdated versions or for different architectures.
any library that is maintained (as in: there is enough interest in it that someone wants to do a fresh upload) *should* have a version number attached to it. (even if it is just a date-based version). practically all libraries *will* have a version that is higher than 0.0extended.
Anyway, seems that deken can take any kind of information and display it. I get it that it's nice to have a clue that it's from extended, so, instead of "v0.0.extended" why not give it a proper version and also explicitly say it's from pd extended? Example suggestion;
instead of "*cyclone-v0-0extended*", it could be "*cyclone-v0.1alpha56-pd-extended*"
would that be worse somehow?
what's the point of adding "pd-extended" when you have a proper version anyhow?
but i think what roman tried to say is, that your energy could be spent much better by uploading updated libraries into deken (with their correct versions set), than beating a dead horse. and if there are no updated versions, then there are no version numbers to compare anyhow.
fg,mrda IOhannes
2017-03-02 16:14 GMT-03:00 IOhannes m zmölnig zmoelnig@iem.at:
On 03/02/2017 06:37 PM, Alexandre Torres Porres wrote:
2017-03-02 6:13 GMT-03:00 Roman Haefeli reduzent@gmail.com:
I thought those are meant to be transitional packages that don't receive any further maintenance.
What do you mean? Some packages are being updated and have newer
versions,
some are abandoned and only have this version from the last *pd-extended* up there... but they're not all meant to be either in one group or
another,
and basically anyone can work on an abandoned library and update/upload a new version...
i don't see how this workflow is hindered by the current state of affairs.
Well, if they differ in version, it's good to know which version it is,
if
it's a newer version, an older version, the same version... I think it's really confusing if you do not know the version at all... you just can't compare! And you have to understand that most people looking at it cannot really grasp the idea that the package is "from the last extended
package"
- you can see the question from David as an example...
the idea is very simple: any package that gets uploaded, should have a version that is higher that "0.0extended". if they have a higher version number, then deken will sort them *before*. the idea of deken is really: the very first link should be the version you are looking for. all other links are either outdated versions or for different architectures.
any library that is maintained (as in: there is enough interest in it that someone wants to do a fresh upload) *should* have a version number attached to it. (even if it is just a date-based version). practically all libraries *will* have a version that is higher than 0.0extended.
Anyway, seems that deken can take any kind of information and display
it. I
get it that it's nice to have a clue that it's from extended, so, instead of "v0.0.extended" why not give it a proper version and also explicitly
say
it's from pd extended? Example suggestion;
instead of "*cyclone-v0-0extended*", it could be "*cyclone-v0.1alpha56-pd-extended*"
would that be worse somehow?
what's the point of adding "pd-extended" when you have a proper version anyhow?
agree, no much point, but I was just trying to meet half way
but i think what roman tried to say is, that your energy could be spent much better by uploading updated libraries into deken (with their correct versions set), than beating a dead horse. and if there are no updated versions, then there are no version numbers to compare anyhow.
Not sure if that's what he meant, but what about the idea of changing the version name of libraries that we know have a proper version other than v0.0?
cyclone is one of them... I'd rather cyclone would be listed as v0.1alpha56 instead of v0-0extended. and I can work on finding out other library versions as well. I can see some do not have a version at all, 'moocow' for instance. It only has a "svn" date... it doesn't have any newer library as well. So, for those, we can just keep it like that, it makes total sense to mark them as "0.0", and maybe if it ever gets any attention or updates, it can be versioned as "0.1" and whatever.
Yeah, seems like a lot of energy to spend, but I don't have much programming skills, so, as a good latin american, I can offer my cheap manual labor for you people, it's fine.
cheers
-
Alexandre Torres Porres -
David -
IOhannes m zmoelnig -
IOhannes m zmölnig
-
Roman Haefeli -
zmoelnig＠iem.at