2007/9/13, elthariel <elthariel@email-addr-hidden>:
> IMHO, what's important in the first place is to have a place where one could
> found every know plugin.
> This let us more time to think about from software discovery and
> compatibility/packaging issues.
Yep.
> We may want to look on the side of self contained package. I know this is
> not the most clean way we could imagine but we could have some bundle
> containing dependencies as well as the plugin. For most of the musician,
> this is not a problem to have a bigger plugin package if it just works.
>
> Another better solution, but less generic, is to have a database that maps
> plugins to distros package as larsl suggested.
>
> I was originally thinking of having a lib to access the webservice that
> would have handled differences between architecture and packaging system
> through plugin.
>
> If we mix this with larsl suggestion we have something that is quite generic
> and quite clean ?
I would absolutely go this way, given that there are enough
development resources (time, people). Anyway, as I already said
replying to Lars, it is my opinion that the lib (either via these
plugins or not) should access the package management system via
supplied libraries rather than using the package manager executable
whenever possible, so that the application can know more about the
installation process.
Stefano
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@email-addr-hidden
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/linux-audio-dev
Received on Fri Sep 14 00:15:02 2007
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Sep 14 2007 - 00:15:02 EEST