Thoughts on pd object packaging - use of cdbs might be preferable?

[Hans-Christoph Steiner]

I'd like to have my packages work on all Debian platforms, but I have  
never worked with hurd or kfreebsd, nor have had any feedback that  
there are problems.  As far as I can tell, my packages build on all  
Debian platforms.  All I can say is: patches welcome.

.hc

On Nov 11, 2010, at 3:49 AM, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:

> On 2010-11-11 09:09, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
>
>>>>
>>>> include /usr/share/cdbs/1/rules/standard-pd-object.mk
>>>>
>>>> What do you think?
>>>
>>> That looks very handy, but I think the given library template is  
>>> well
>>> tuned.
>
> well, i think the template library Makefile fails on the the kfreebsd
> and hurd platforms (at least according to the build logs).
>
> i understand that these platforms are not the main targets, but  
> since we
> are on debian, there is no good reason to not include them.
>
> a common makefile snippet could help a lot (also on debian-derivatives
> that have x86 derived architectures (e.g. i686), that could benefit  
> from
> enabling optimzations globally (think SIMD))
>
>
> <sidenote>
> the above looks a bit ironic to me...
> within the pd-community i guess that i was (and am) one of the  
> stronger
> advocates of self-contained build-systems (there has been loads of
> discussion on whether it is better to use a single Makefile for all  
> (or
> most) libraries or whether each library should have there own cloned
> makefile.
> the "library template Makefile" is basically the outcome of the  
> latter,
> and allows each library to build without having to download the entire
> repository.
>
> however, i think that those problems mainly arose because there is no
> way to define build-dependency in a cross-platform way for ordinary
> Pd-packages.
> since now we are in the good position that we are talking about  
> debian,
> we actually have the possibility to use build-dependencies and i don't
> see a reason to not do that.
> </sidenote>
>
>
>> For me the problem would be then learning cdbs for special
>>> cases.  But since there are still at least 30 unpackaged Pd  
>>> libraries, I
>>> think having this as option makes sense. I'd call it something like
>>> standard-pd-library.mk
>
> well, one practical problem would obviously be, that there currently  
> is
> no "puredata-dev" package yet, and it is unlikely to come before the
> upstream release of Pd-0.43 (which was due in august, but was delayed
> since then).
>
> would it make sense to create a separate package (e.g.
> "puredata-debian-dev") for the sole purpose of centralizing the  
> makefile
> snippets?
>
> this package could then include cdbs, dh,... so people could have  
> their
> pick.
>
>
> fgmasdr
> IOhannes
>
> _______________________________________________
> pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list
> pkg-multimedia-maintainers at lists.alioth.debian.org
> http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers




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

All mankind is of one author, and is one volume; when one man dies,  
one chapter is not torn out of the book, but translated into a better  
language; and every chapter must be so translated.... -John Donne