So, cyclone 0.2beta1 wasn't showing up in deken for macOS, this is something I've been aware of for years, but I only decided to do something about it today.
So I uploaded a new build I did https://puredata.info/Members/porres/software/cyclone/0.2beta1/
The other version that's still up there is in https://puredata.info/Members/fjkraan/software/cyclone/0.2beta1/ I don't know why this build and upload doesn't show for macOS, what's the issue, but hey, maybe we keep it to, I don't know... just warning you people of what's going on.
I also uploaded other older builds that were missing and want to do that for other platforms as well (namely 0.1alpha57, 0.2beta2 and 0.2beta3), I did this for macOS only but can do for othr platforms that are missing (raspberry pi too maybe?).
The 0.1alpha56 version is what's actually named as extended.v00 and that was part of Pd-Extended 0.43, 0.1alpha55 is the one that was part of extended for most of its run and i'd like to upload that too eventually. It'd be good to name them both as 'extended' and use their actual version next to it (extended.0.1-alpha55 / extended.0.1-alpha56) - could we do that?
Yes dear IOhannes, I'm asking you :)
cheers
On 6/2/21 18:27, Alexandre Torres Porres wrote:
So, cyclone 0.2beta1 wasn't showing up in deken for macOS, this is something I've been aware of for years, but I only decided to do something about it today.
So I uploaded a new build I did https://puredata.info/Members/porres/software/cyclone/0.2beta1/
The other version that's still up there is in https://puredata.info/Members/fjkraan/software/cyclone/0.2beta1/ I don't know why this build and upload doesn't show for macOS, what's the issue, but hey, maybe we keep it to, I don't know... just warning you people of what's going on.
it does show up.
but the package does not provide a Darwin/amd64/single-precision binary, that's why it doesn't show up as a native-package for the Pd you are using (instead it some weirdo "X86_64" architecture, which is unknown to deken).
The 0.1alpha56 version is what's actually named as extended.v00 and that
there's no such version on deken.
was part of Pd-Extended 0.43, 0.1alpha55 is the one that was part of extended for most of its run and i'd like to upload that too eventually. It'd be good to name them both as 'extended' and use their actual version next to it (extended.0.1-alpha55 / extended.0.1-alpha56) - could we do that?
Yes dear IOhannes, I'm asking you :)
i hear you, but i don't know what you are asking.
could we do that?
yes, from a technical pov.
but i'm not sure about the merits.
- putting "extended" at the beginning of the version string is certain
to break any version sorting. i'm not entirely sure whether those fossil should always be sorted on top. (it has the side-effect that people would start downloading the original cyclone by krzysztof, rather than any new fangled fork)
- but putting the name "extended" into the version, sounds like a bad
idea anyhow. what information will people get from it? and why don't you just put "jessie" or "trusty" in it as well (iirc, Debian/jessie and Ubuntu/trusty shipped this version of cyclone - there was a world outside of pd-extended, even back then).
- yes there are "v0.0extended" versions. i think i've explained
already, that this was done in order to not have to track down the exact version of 100 or so externals (most of which where snapshots anyhow so they had no *real* version, even if some of them would print a version string whenbeing loaded). these files were the *actual binaries* from Pd-extended. the version-number 0.0 was chosen so any library would be sorted before those stub-uploads once a "proper" package was uploaded.
i'm also not sure about the actual merits of uploading newly compiled binaries of 15 year old libraries that are still actively maintained. the original upload happened because we needed a starting base to make deken attractive. it also helped people port their patches from Pd-extended. but there never was a RPi version of Pd-extended.
i'm all for keeping old versions around (as in: don't ever delete artefacts from deken) but that doesn't necessarily mean that we should re-surrect bitrotten "things".
gfDSRA IOhannes
Em qua., 2 de jun. de 2021 às 17:13, IOhannes m zmölnig zmoelnig@iem.at escreveu:
i hear you, but i don't know what you are asking.
I'll try again
- yes there are "v0.0extended" versions.
yeah, that's what I meant, sorry, so my question was if we could rename the "v0.0extended" version of cyclone as "v0.1alpha56.extended".
Cause I would then include "v0.1alpha55.extended" as well.
i'm also not sure about the actual merits of uploading newly compiled binaries of 15 year old libraries that are still actively maintained. the original upload happened because we needed a starting base to make deken attractive. it also helped people port their patches from Pd-extended. but there never was a RPi version of Pd-extended.
Yeah, my concern is 'resurrecting old patches from extended', and my reasoning is that 'v0.1alpha55' was the version that was carried for the most part and v0.1alpha56 only came at the very last version and got deleted. There's a problem in this v0.1alpha56 version, it broke all spectral processing when trying to fix a bug in [cartopol~]/[poltocar~]. This ruined all of my spectral processing examples and is the reason why my old tutorial that ran on extended used forever the 0.42-5 version.
i'm all for keeping old versions around (as in: don't ever delete artefacts from deken) but that doesn't necessarily mean that we should re-surrect bitrotten "things".
Well... I believe 'v0.1alpha55' better represents the 'extended' period/version and I would like to include that too and would also like to prevent confusion.
So, what do you think?
On 6/9/21 3:12 AM, Alexandre Torres Porres wrote:
Em qua., 2 de jun. de 2021 às 17:13, IOhannes m zmölnig zmoelnig@iem.at escreveu:
yeah, that's what I meant, sorry, so my question was if we could rename the "v0.0extended" version of cyclone as "v0.1alpha56.extended".
i don't see a reason.
Cause I would then include "v0.1alpha55.extended" as well.
why can't you upload a "v0.1alpha55" (without the ".extended" suffix)?
it might come from the "extended" period, but it also comes from the "george w bush" period (we probably don't want that in the version) and from the "year of the microcredit" (as we all remember, except for the very young'uns)
Well... I believe 'v0.1alpha55' better represents the 'extended' period/version and I would like to include that too and would also like to prevent confusion.
i don't understand the confusion of which you are afraid (so i guess you are right with your fears: the first one is already confused).
if you upload v0.1alpha55 and v0.1alpha56, it will be sorted right after v0.1alpha57 (that you already uploaded) and before v0.0.extended (uploaded by chr15m half-a-decade ago). i think this is expected and how it should be.
(if you uploaded a "v0.4.1.extended" it would sort right between v0.4 and v0.5-0 and it wouldn't give a jota about where the other versions that have an "extended" somewhere in its name go to.)
so when resurrecting a Pd-extended patch, you probably need to precisely instruct the users what they need to install anyhow. and telling them to install "v0.1alpha55" doesn't sound very copmlicated (at least no more complicated than: "check for any version labeled "extended" but don't pck v0.1alpha56 because it is seriously broken).
if you worry about other people resurrecting pd-extended patches who happen to have no clue about which version they should pick but would be helped very much if "extended" was in the version string....then it either won't matter (because their specific patch doesn't use any of the broken functionality), or they will do a quick web searh and find the mailinglist archives were similar problems had been discussed before¹
vgfmdsftg IOhannes
¹ ah. now that i mention it. i do not remember anybody *ever* complaining about this problem since we started deken. either the problem does not exist in reality, or it is being discussed at length on the facebook group of which i'm blissfully unaware.
-
Alexandre Torres Porres -
IOhannes m zmoelnig -
IOhannes m zmölnig