29 Jul
2011
29 Jul
'11
9:16 p.m.
On 07/29/2011 08:00 PM, David Robillard wrote:
I agree that good pointers and docs on the LV2 site could be a solution. But,
one concrete reason is that for example, you don't have anything like aptitude
install lilv on other OSes. I think that we don't see the need for SDKs on Linux
because we have distributions and smart packaging systems, which gracefully
handle dependencies.
--
Olivier
On Fri, 2011-07-29 at 13:56 +0200, Olivier Guilyardi
wrote:
I understand
that you want LV2 to be a standard and only a standard, and thus
only show its specification on http://lv2plug.in. You seem to consider that
serd, sord and lilv are helper libraries and only one route amongst other
possible routes to host LV2 plugins. This is consistent in /principle/, but do
you not something feel like such "modularity" can be confusing, when compared
to
existing major plugin technologies which provide everything as an SDK? Do you
not feel like a complete LV2 SDK would be more developer friendly, in /practice/?
No I don't. Do you have any concrete reason why that would be the case,
that isn't eliminated by simply clearly pointing to good implementations
on the LV2 site?