On 07/29/2011 08:00 PM, David Robillard wrote:
> On Fri, 2011-07-29 at 13:56 +0200, Olivier Guilyardi wrote:
>> I understand that you want LV2 to be a standard and only a standard, and thus
>> only show its specification on http://lv2plug.in. You seem to consider that
>> serd, sord and lilv are helper libraries and only one route amongst other
>> possible routes to host LV2 plugins. This is consistent in /principle/, but do
>> you not something feel like such "modularity" can be confusing, when compared to
>> existing major plugin technologies which provide everything as an SDK? Do you
>> not feel like a complete LV2 SDK would be more developer friendly, in /practice/?
>
> No I don't. Do you have any concrete reason why that would be the case,
> that isn't eliminated by simply clearly pointing to good implementations
> on the LV2 site?
I agree that good pointers and docs on the LV2 site could be a solution. But,
one concrete reason is that for example, you don't have anything like aptitude
install lilv on other OSes. I think that we don't see the need for SDKs on Linux
because we have distributions and smart packaging systems, which gracefully
handle dependencies.
-- Olivier _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@email-addr-hidden http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-devReceived on Sat Jul 30 00:15:02 2011
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sat Jul 30 2011 - 00:15:02 EEST