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

[Hans-Christoph Steiner]

On Nov 5, 2010, at 6:16 AM, IOhannes m zmölnig wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 11/05/2010 04:51 AM, Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
>>>
>>> i'd probably go for a "pd-plugins-misc" (name to be discussed)  
>>> package
>>> that distributes a number of _trivial_ 3rd party objects ("trivial"
>>> meaning, that they don't justify separate packaging)
>>
>> We are really talking about libraries, plugins is not an appropriate
>> word.  Are python objects "plugins"?  How about perl modules? Same  
>> idea
>> here.
>
> i was speaking more about the concept of "lumping together different
> upstream projects" than the actual name (hence the parenthesized  
> comment)
>
>>
>> As for packaging pd-arraysize together with other things, as far as I
>> know, it is not Debian practice to lump together different upstream
>> projects into a single package, I don't think its a good idea here
>> either.
>>
>
> i think this is to be discussed on this list.
> i don't know whether it's good practice, and esp. i don't know whether
> its worse practice than creating a debian package for 2 smallish  
> files.

It is not good practice, it is a special case based on the upstream  
distribution that has existed for many years.  Why exclude a useful  
package purely because its only two small files?  Shall we remove lots  
of kernel modules for the same reason/


>>> (esp. in this very case, where the help-patch is fully functional  
>>> even
>>> without pd-pddp installed; having pd-pddp only allows to have a
>>> clickable link in the help-patch for more information, instead of a
>>> (harmless) error on the pd-console)
>>
>> If by "fully" you mean except the part of the help patch that needs
>> 'pddp'.  ;-P  The help patch uses an object in pd-pddp. That part  
>> of the
>> help patch won't work without it.
>>
>
> yes this is esactly what i mean by "fully".
>
> the non-working object is mainly "cosmetical" (in a sense that it
> directs you to further reading, but does not provide any primary
> information). you should be able to get all the information you need
> from the help-patch even with a non-functional [pddp/link] object (and
> if not, then there is a serious problem with the help-patch, as it  
> means
> you have to resort to online documentation)
>
> i would sugggest to use a "Suggests: pd-pddp" at the most.


First off, its key to mention to those not familiar with Pd: the help  
patches are fully functional scripts, not just static documentation.   
So that means if pddp/link is not available, then that aspect of the  
will not work (in this case pddp/link provides a clickable link to a  
webpage).

My question here is: why make things deliberately hostile for  
newbies?  The docs should work and not throw errors when the open  
them.  I can understand using Recommends if they are installed by  
default with no user intervention. I'd prefer Depends for the above  
reasons.  I strongly disagree about using Suggests here.

.hc


----------------------------------------------------------------------------

News is what people want to keep hidden and everything else is  
publicity.          - Bill Moyers