Hi list,
using the amazing Debian packages of Pd and am puzzled to find that the following two paths seem owned by the same package puredata-core and seem to exist twice:
peter@computer:~$ dpkg-query -S /usr/lib/puredata/doc/7.stuff puredata-core: /usr/lib/puredata/doc/7.stuff peter@comouter:~$ dpkg-query -S /usr/share/puredata/doc/7.stuff puredata-core: /usr/share/puredata/doc/7.stuff
Is this intentional? Thanks! P
Not really. I just prefer to have files and folders once on my system if that's sufficient for proper operation as it is easier to remember and maintain for me.
I guess you are trying to have Pd's docs in its traditional location in /usr/lib/pd and in a Debain-style /usr/share/doc path.
I am also surprised there is /usr/lib/puredata/extra and / /usr/lib/pd/extra which are owned by different packages respectively. Why not make /usr/lib/puredata equal to /usr/lib/pd?
Thank you for the packaging work, this is amazing! best, P
On 2017-02-06 13:41, Peter P. wrote:
actually, the /usr/lib/... is just a symlink to /usr/share/..., so the files are indeed only stored once on your harddisk.
because they are not equal. /usr/lib/puredata is meant for externals that only work with the "puredata" package (aka Pd-vanilla), whereas /usr/lib/pd/extra is for externals that work with any flavour. this is a left-over from the days of the pipe-dreams of co-existing pd-vanilla and pd-extended Debian packages. today's forks (pd-l2ork, purrdata) actively reject the notion of binary compatibility (so they must not look for externals in /usr/lib/pd/extra)
apart from that, i question your methodolofy: which package is the owner of /usr?
gasdrm IOhannes
Hi,
Thank you, this is clear to me now.
Aha, this was not clear to me from the two paths alone. Thank you for the explanation.
this is a left-over from the days of the pipe-dreams of co-existing pd-vanilla and pd-extended Debian packages.
And could be consolidated maybe even?
today's forks (pd-l2ork, purrdata) actively reject the notion of binary compatibility (so they must not look for externals in /usr/lib/pd/extra)
"must not" or "do not have to"?
apart from that, i question your methodolofy: which package is the owner of /usr?
Thank you, is there an alternative way of posing that question so that I could benefit (ie. understand it) more easily?
best, P
On 2017-02-06 14:07, Peter P. wrote:
well, i don't see any harm in being open to multiple (binary compatible) implementations. i don't see any important argument for conosolidating, so i won't do it.
"binary incompatibility" doesn't necessarily mean "won't load". it's more along the lines: will burn your computer and vote for trump.
amsdr IOhannes