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

[Hans-Christoph Steiner]

On Wed, 2010-11-10 at 20:27 -0300, Felipe Sateler wrote:
> Given that most pd libraries use the same template, I think we can
> leverage the use of cdbs here:
> 
> 1. We ship (eg, in puredata-dev) a standard-pd-object.mk CDBS class
> which includes the snippets needed for the shlibdeps and license
> fiddling, and the makefile class.
> 2. rules files then become simply:
> 
> #!/usr/bin/make -f
> 
> LIBRARY_NAME = pdlib
> 
> 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.  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

.hc