On Wednesday 18 January 2012 02:59:44 David Robillard wrote: > <lv2.h> is the old-style include. It is still installed there, but > things are migrating to the new-style URI-like includes. There's > nothing really wrong with using <lv2.h> for now (for extensions, though, > the *only* system include is the URI-style one). > > Bundling headers in your source is fine, and how most things have been > done in the past, but I am trying to encourage a migration to sane > packaging and system-installed extension headers because the duplication > is pretty crazy. That said, for the time being, including them is still > probably the pragmatic thing to do until packagers catch up. > > lv2.h is probably an exception since it is always present if lv2core is > installed. Everyone I know of depends on lv2core via pkg-config and > includes the system lv2.h in the usual way (as if it were a library).
Yes, lv2core is available in most distributions. However e.g. on Debian "Squeeze", it is fairly old (v3.0, may 2009). So the question is just whether the LV2 support along with the extensions will work completely as expected with such an old lv2core. If yes, we leave it as it is right now. Since you are actively working on the extensions, I must leave it to you to decide whether to include lv2core with the sampler sources. CU Christian ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Keep Your Developer Skills Current with LearnDevNow! The most comprehensive online learning library for Microsoft developers is just $99.99! Visual Studio, SharePoint, SQL - plus HTML5, CSS3, MVC3, Metro Style Apps, more. Free future releases when you subscribe now! http://p.sf.net/sfu/learndevnow-d2d _______________________________________________ Linuxsampler-devel mailing list Linuxsampler-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linuxsampler-devel
