25 Apr
2006
25 Apr
'06
10:09 a.m.
On Tue, Apr 25, 2006 at 07:26:20AM -0600, Hans Fugal wrote:
Yes, exactly.
- Steve
On Tue, 25 Apr 2006 at 10:07 +0100, Steve Harris
wrote:
Ah, I meant things that are created at compilation or install time.
Dynamic things have to be kept somewhere else, but plugins shouldn't be
doing runtime i/o anyway.
I'd like to see LADSPA 2.0 plugins always
being directories, wether we go
for bundles or not. It gives the plugin somewhere to stash its auxilarry
data (precompiled tables etc.), which otherwise is a bit of a pain.
Well, yes and no. Yes if you install it somewhere you have permissions
to write to. No if it's installed somewhere by root. It's
possible to retrofit bundles to 2.x by reserving the lib/ directory
inside the plugin directory for future use in 2.0.
zeroinstall, http://0install.net/ uses something similar to bundles at it
works well on linux.
I like the bundle idea as well. I've found it works pretty well in OS X,
it gives a sense of one package to the user, who just drags it around in
a file manager, and the power for the developer or power user to poke
around in the directory.