On Tue, Apr 25, 2006 at 07:26:20AM -0600, Hans Fugal wrote: > On Tue, 25 Apr 2006 at 10:07 +0100, Steve Harris wrote: > > 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.
Ah, I meant things that are created at compilation or install time. Dynamic things have to be kept somewhere else, but plugins shouldn't be doing runtime i/o anyway. > > 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. Yes, exactly. - Steve
