On Thu, 5 Apr 2001, Daniel V. wrote:
> I don't think it's a bad idea, but similarly I don't think it will be
> implemented because LADSPA's simplicity is it's strength. You don't
> want to be in the situation where things get ugly, but you can't fix
> the spec because you have lots of legacy apps relying on the ugly stuff
> (see: dos). You're probably better off using your own slightly modified
> spec that stays close to LADSPA, and encapsulate LADSPA in this spec at
> your end. This will keep it in a form that can be ported to whatever
> complex arch. prevails when the time comes, while not losing compatibility
> with current plugins. Can't see a way to solve the problem of getting
> your plugins to work with other hosts thru LADSPA though :(
Versioning Information, I can understand why people don't put this sort of
thing in by default.
Just get it to return:
ladspa v0.7-dvenkita0.2
--
e: [EMAIL PROTECTED] t: 0115 922 7162
