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
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