20 May
2005
20 May
'05
7:44 a.m.
On Wed, May 18, 2005 at 01:19:58 +0100, Mike Rawes wrote:
Yes, thats right IIUC.
You have to be carefull here not to put more effort into the site that
youre saving overall... in realtily there aren't very many LADSPA
developers with small numbers of plugins, and distribution maintainers
should be taking care of packaging the notable ones.
- Steve
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.
Thats right, due to the lack of anything better.
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)?