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 [email protected] http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
