22 Apr
2006
22 Apr
'06
7:21 p.m.
On Sun, 2006-04-23 at 03:56 +0700, Patrick Shirkey wrote:
Hi,
Thanks for the feedback so far.
Here are the main concerns for me at this point:
- Can we force a central repository on developers. Would developers
support a Firefox style plugin portal? The site will fail if it requires
manual updating by the site maintainer. The onus would have to be on
each developer to update and add to the repository as they create or
update their code.
- Could we automate the xml schema to remove that hassle for developers?
This would allow changes to be made to the schema without requiring
manual updates for every plugin.
I think this is something that should be a primary concern addressed
with LADSPA2. There really aren't /that/ many LADSPA plugins around, I
think making LADSPA2 plugins suitable for a repository like this and
just porting plugins is a better plan than having an overly complicated
repository that tries to work around LADSPA1's unsuitability for it.
Plugins having URI's and some sort of standard package format (that
Steve has already proposed) is all that's needed. I personally promise
to port the lesser known unmaintained plugins to LADSPA2 if it will
solve the Big Maintainer-Based Package Problem (which causes
considerable grief in Om land) and make a repository like this possible.
That said, I think an approach like Arch might be best here - with a
standard package format, a plugin "repository" could just be a directory
on a server somewhere and apps could resolve (resolvable) URIs to grab
any plugins they need. Devs could handle their own package
"repositories" rather than be forced to deal with a centralized site, as
I'm sure some of the bigger names would probably rather do.
A central site would still be a good thing though, on the user end of
things.
-DR-