On Tue, 25 Apr 2006 at 10:07 +0100, Steve Harris wrote: > On Mon, Apr 24, 2006 at 12:44:03PM -0400, Taybin Rutkin wrote: > > I like the bundle idea. What are the reasons to not use it? Reasons to > > use it include ease of distribution (especially on other platforms like > > osx). > > > > I think bundles are a great idea that should be adopted by other unixen. > > > > Or, can we make it so that bundles are a possible method of distribution > > and either it or the typical installation into various directories could be > > used? > > I'd like to see LADSPA 2.0 plugins always being directories, wether we go > for bundles or not. It gives the plugin somewhere to stash its auxilarry > data (precompiled tables etc.), which otherwise is a bit of a pain.
Well, yes and no. Yes if you install it somewhere you have permissions to write to. No if it's installed somewhere by root. > It's possible to retrofit bundles to 2.x by reserving the lib/ directory > inside the plugin directory for future use in 2.0. > > zeroinstall, http://0install.net/ uses something similar to bundles at it > works well on linux. > I like the bundle idea as well. I've found it works pretty well in OS X, it gives a sense of one package to the user, who just drags it around in a file manager, and the power for the developer or power user to poke around in the directory. -- Hans Fugal ; http://hans.fugal.net There's nothing remarkable about it. All one has to do is hit the right keys at the right time and the instrument plays itself. -- Johann Sebastian Bach
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
