Re: A common plugin repository (WAS:Re: [LAD] ladspa qa?)

On Thu, 2007-09-06 at 11:27 +0200, N. Gey wrote:
> Georg Holzmann schrieb:
> > yep. maybe the gstreamer way is a possible solutions, or something
> > similar. they have three categories: good, bad and ugly (which are
> > also different packages):
> >
> > -------8<--------
> > gst-plugins-good: a set of good-quality plug-ins under our preferred
> > license, LGPL
> > gst-plugins-ugly: a set of good-quality plug-ins that might pose
> > distribution problems
> > gst-plugins-bad: a set of plug-ins that need more quality
> > --------8<--------
> > (http://gstreamer.freedesktop.org/modules/)
>
> SVN is one (good) thing, but pre-packaging is very bad. Who will decide
> whats good and whats not? There is no indipendent way for all styles of
> music. Whats good for electro is bad for classical and so on. So
> prefiltering is not the right way. Reviewing afterwards regarding to
> cases of use is a more fair system.

well, there are some points, that can be used to judge the quality of
plugins. if a filter is unstable, it is neither good for electro nor for
classical, as you don't hear anything from NANs.

tim

--
tim@email-addr-hidden    ICQ: 96771783
http://tim.klingt.org
Avoid the world, it's just a lot of dust and drag and means nothing in
the end.
  Jack Kerouac

_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@email-addr-hidden
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/linux-audio-dev