On Fri, Apr 02, 2010 at 04:22:01PM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 02, 2010 at 09:53:38AM -0400, Eric Dantan Rzewnicki wrote:
>> On Fri, Apr 02, 2010 at 02:37:46PM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
>>> Hi Jaromír (and others),
> swh-plugins is a _specific_ set of LADSPA plugins.  There are other  
> LADSPA plugins which I (blindly, I must confess) assumed would fulfill  
> the need too.


Specifically mentions swh, but no other LADSPAs.

> I do not follow your logic that professional=swh-plugins (or even th  
> implicit one that professional=LADSPA) - did I perhaps misunderstand  
> your point somehow?

I don't know that I was employing logic. I've not even ever used JAMin
... just speaking from memory of LAD/LAU mailing list discusions from
years ago during JAMin's inception and early development.

>>> Are perhaps _some_ LADSPA plugin _always_ needed for _all_ uses?
>> I can't see this being true for all packages.
> Oh, I think we talk past each other.  Let me try reversing the question:  
> Is JAMin completely useless if there are no LADSPA plugins installed at  
> all?

I _think_ so, but do not know so definitively.

> And similarly the first question reversed: Is JAMin completely useless  
> if those specific LADSPA plugins contained in the swh-plugins plackage  
> are not installed (even if other LADSPA modules are installed)?

swh-plugins being listed on the reqs page seems to support this, but
again, I could be wrong.

>> But, I may be just chattering idly again, contributing to the noise  
>> floor ...
> If nothing else you helped reveal that my questions was ambiguous :-)

That's comforting. :)


pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list

Reply via email to