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

[Felipe Sateler]

On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 17:15, Hans-Christoph Steiner <hans at at.or.at> wrote:
>
> On Nov 4, 2010, at 9:34 AM, Roman Haefeli wrote:
>
>> 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?
>
> Yeah, it is annoying for sure.  The problem is that this particular object
> is widely used and has been distributed and used like this since 2003ish.

Can't it be distributed within puredata itself?

>
>> 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.
>
>
> Thanks for the bug report.  I'm ready to submit pd-pddp to Debian, so
> that'll happen soon.  Then I'll add the pd-pddp dependency to pd-arraysize.
>  If you have the time, please file a bug report, but I also have it on my
> personal TODO list.

Usage in a helpfile does not really warrant a Depends relation.
Recommends or Suggests are better.


-- 

Saludos,
Felipe Sateler