On Sun, 2009-11-08 at 20:59 +0000, Chris Cannam wrote: > On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 8:53 PM, Chris Cannam > <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 8:43 PM, Paul Davis <[email protected]> > > wrote: > >> [X] This plugin was discovered but can't be used without hacking this > >> host and recompiling because its uses an extension that isn't > >> currently supported. > >> > >> That kind of PITA? :) > > > > That kind of PITA, for every new plugin that is installed, but perhaps > > the bigger problem is what to do about optional extensions. The > > plugin may run without them, but for all you know, it may run in a way > > that is not really satisfactory for most real users of it. Warn them > > at install time and they'll certainly have forgotten by the time the > > plugin actually gets used, or at least will be unable to recognise the > > symptom. > > Also -- are you, like me, bored with LADSPA plugins crashing your host > in tedious, obvious ways? How about an LV2 plugin that expects a > particular extension but doesn't really need it so marks it as > optional, then turns out not to have been tested without it -- and, > wouldn't you know, every host except yours happens to support that > extension? Wouldn't you love to be the first host to run the untested > code path in production? > > (I freely admit that this is a sort of FUD, but it happens to be a FUD > that is playing on my own mind at the moment. Reassure me.)
Can't really do anything about plugins that crash(*), for whatever reason. I don't think extensions increase this likelihood. We just need tools to aggressively test plugins and find this stuff. -dr (* at least in realtime...) _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
