Re: [LAD] LV2 Achievement of GMPI Requirements

On Wed, 2012-08-01 at 00:43 +0400, Alexandre Prokoudine wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 12:13 AM, David Robillard <d@email-addr-hidden> wrote:
> > I have adapted the GMPI requirements final draft document to a
> > comparison with the current state of LV2: http://lv2plug.in/gmpi.html
>
> Excuse my curiosity, but whose government's permit to dig on the site
> of GMPI did you have to obtain through bribing? :)

It was a useful archaeological endeavour to perhaps dig up any useful
vestiges of a long gone civilization ;)

> I'm a bit concerned about your stance towards portability of LV2.

LV2, the specification, is entirely portable.

> Audacity used to have that problem with regards to an existing
> implementation of LV2, and they had to disable the code completely,
> along with (quite useful, IMHO) automatic classification of plug-ins
> in menu (there was another reason for the latter, though).

I have heard nothing about this situation. However my implementation,
lilv[1] (along with its few dependencies) is definitely portable. It is
tested and working on many flavours of POSIX including GNU/Linux,
FreeBSD, and OpenBSD, as well as Mac OS X, and Windows (natively, with
no imported POSIX layers, it even compiles with VC++, which is quite an
achievement in portability to horrifyingly terrible things).

Note this is purely host stuff. Plugins are simple C things and do not
require such libraries.

I have done a great deal of work making sure my entire LV2 stack is
portable, thoroughly well-tested, and working on any platform that
matters. I do not enjoy working with proprietary platforms, Windows
especially, but I did it anyway, so yes, I will proudly claim that all
of this stuff is entirely portable in practice, through deliberate
effort by myself. May you spread LV2 enlightenment to even the
shittiest of platform, in the hopes that the users will see the light ;)

It would be nice to establish support in hosts on foreign platforms to
resolve the chicken & egg problem. I encourage Audacity, and others, to
do so. Should there be any problems, please file a ticket[2], and they
will be resolved.

> So I'm
> curious if an extra layer is really that much required.

What do you mean by this? Which layer is or is not required?

Thanks,

-dr

[1] http://drobilla.net/software/lilv
[2] http://dev.drobilla.net/newticket

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