24 Apr
2006
24 Apr
'06
2:44 p.m.
I like the bundle idea. What are the reasons to not use it? Reasons to use it include
ease of distribution (especially on other platforms like osx).
I think bundles are a great idea that should be adopted by other unixen.
Or, can we make it so that bundles are a possible method of distribution and either it or
the typical installation into various directories could be used?
Taybin
25 Apr
25 Apr
7:07 a.m.
On Mon, Apr 24, 2006 at 12:44:03PM -0400, Taybin Rutkin wrote:
I like the bundle idea. What are the reasons to not
use it? Reasons to use it include ease of distribution (especially on other platforms
like osx).
I think bundles are a great idea that should be adopted by other unixen.
Or, can we make it so that bundles are a possible method of distribution and either it or
the typical installation into various directories could be used?
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.
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.
- Steve
11:26 a.m.
On Tue, 25 Apr 2006 at 10:07 +0100, Steve Harris wrote:
On Mon, Apr 24, 2006 at 12:44:03PM -0400, Taybin
Rutkin wrote:
Well, yes and no. Yes if you install it somewhere you have permissions
to write to. No if it's installed somewhere by root.
I like the bundle idea. What are the reasons to
not use it? Reasons to use it include ease of distribution (especially on other platforms
like osx).
I think bundles are a great idea that should be adopted by other unixen.
Or, can we make it so that bundles are a possible method of distribution and either it or
the typical installation into various directories could be used?
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. 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.
--
Hans Fugal ; http://hans.fugal.net
There's nothing remarkable about it. All one has to do is hit the
right keys at the right time and the instrument plays itself.
-- Johann Sebastian Bach
12:09 p.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.
6745
days inactive
6746
days old
linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
3 comments
3 participants
participants (3)
-
Hans Fugal -
Steve Harris -
Taybin Rutkin