Comments regarding pd-arraysize_0.1-1_amd64.changes

[Roman Haefeli]

On Thu, 2010-11-04 at 13:03 +0000, Luca Falavigna wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> quoting from your debian/copyright:
>     License: This code is too trivial to have a licence or copyright.
> 
> Is it really necessary to distribute it in a standalone source package?

Yeah, I also think that this is questionable. I'm not the right person
to make decisions, but my opinion is that we (Pd people) should take the
chance now that we're pushing Pd libraries to Debian to try to make it
as clean as possible, i.e. try not to clutter the pd-lib space with too
many trivial single-object libraries. Since the code is so trivial that
it's not even worth being covered by a license, why not incorporating
into an existing library, hcs for instance? 

On an unrelated note: the help-file contains an object [pddp/pddplink],
but pd-array does not depend on a pd-pddp (which does not yet exist).
Personally, I think that the link in the help-file does not justify to
pull another dependency in, which is otherwise not necessary for
pd-arraysize to work properly at all. Unless we agree to make pddp a
standard within help-files, I'd propose to get rid of pddp links in
help-files of debianized Pd libraries.


Roman