[linux-audio-dev] LADSPA Issues

[Mike Rawes]

--- Dave Robillard <drobilla at connect.carleton.ca> wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> A while ago I started a thread about the proper way to refer to LADSPA
> plugins (in save files or whatever) and the consensus was library
> filename + label.
> 
> People have been having problems with library name - different packages
> seem to make different names for the libraries (prefixing blop_, for
> example) so it doesn't always work.  Basically I think using shared
> library file name is an awful way to reference plugins for numerous
> reasons.

As the guilty party (author of blop) I admit that when this option was added
(--program-prefix for library files) it was done in blissful ignorance of the
use of library basename as an identifier, as I had assumed that the Unique ID
was as claimed in ladspa.h. 

The purpose was to avoid name clashes with generic names such as 'sawtooth' - I
ended up copying swh, and append the UID (so it does have a use after all :) to
the filenames. I'd meant to remove the --program-prefix option from configure,
but forgot.

> So why wasn't the unique ID the thing to use?  There is a unique plugin
> ID in LADSPA, if not for this then for what reason?

Going by what is said on ladspa.org, I think that it was originally intended to
be the way to refer to plugins, and changed as development progressed.

IIRC, the UID is still required to lookup metadata with liblrdf, but this may
have changed since I last looked.

> In a similar vein, I really think the current system for LADSPA
> distribution sucks - big tarballs from various devs containing heaps of
> completely unrelated plugins.  A centralized site where plugins can be
> submitted on their own (or in related groups) would be a great thing,
> IMO, and would make it easy to verify that unique IDs are in fact unique
> to solve the above problem.

I don't think you'll get very far arguing the case for UIDs - the arguments
against were pretty clear in the previous discussion and summarised by Chris
Cannam in his response. I think we're stuck with basename+label until a better
scheme can be implemented, possibly for LADSPA 2.

Regarding unrelated plugins in one library, I personally don't have a problem
with this as liblrdf does a fine job of categorising plugins where it's really
needed (in the host). 

> Right now if a developer wants to make just one random plugin, they
> don't really have a sane way of getting it out there.  

I agree here. The best option short of creating a new library distribution is
to get your plugin 'adopted' into an existing library.

I'm certainly willing to merge any homeless plugins into blop.

> I'm willing to full-time maintain the site, but I don't really have the
> hosting/abilities to create it.  What do the other plugin authors think
> about this?  

I'm all for it. Maybe liase with Richard Furse to update the ladspa.org site
itself? There's already a list of links there so all that is really needed is
to add details for maintainers willing to adopt plugins, with appropriate
provisions (kind of plugin, language, build system and so on)?

- 
Mike



	
	
		
___________________________________________________________ 
Yahoo! Messenger - want a free and easy way to contact your friends online? http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com