On Tue, 2011-11-29 at 20:00 -0300, Felipe Sateler wrote: > On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 04:53, Roman Haefeli <reduz...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > If time allows, > > Finally some time... :/ > > > could you also have a look at pd-pdstring? It's been > > waiting for some time and I have ironed out all issues that were > > discussed on this list. > > As discussed in another thread, the autotools stuff need not be > documented in the copyright file, and is just unnecessary noise.
OK, I wait and adapt what is necessary as soon as there is some consensus. In this case, the autogenerated stuff is part of the source package, so according to Jonas the licenses of those files need to be mentioned in debian/copyright, if I understand correctly. > BTW, I still find it weird that we need to issue weird commands in pd > to load distro-provided externals. Can someone please explain to me > the rationale for such a requirement? What is it that you do not understand? The mere fact that you need to enable additional libraries in the patch or the weird way how this needs to be done? If the latter is the case, I don't have a real answer but that this is the only way to _fully_ enable certain libraries. That is mainly because Pd treats libraries consisting of abstractions (.pd files which are themselves Pd patches) differently from externals (classes compiled from C / C++ sources). If a certain library consists of both, you need the weird line as mentioned in Readme.Debian. Does that address your question? Roman _______________________________________________ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
