[PD-dev] including [dssi~] in Pd-extended

[james tittle]

On Mar 18, 2006, at 7:23 PM, Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
> On Mar 18, 2006, at 7:15 PM, Frank Barknecht wrote:
>> We do need to draw a line somewhere about what to include in a Pd
>> distribution and what to leave out. Every software package has to
>> decide such things, Max has to, Pd has to, Ardour has to, Firefox has
>> to. And I would draw that line when it comes to plugins. DSSI and
>> LADSPA are well defined interfaces that were designed with the main
>> goal in mind, that plugin authors and the authors of plugin host
>> software should be able to work independently. Including plugins in
>> the Pd CVS would defy that underlying idea of DSSI and LADSPA.
>
> What I don't understand with this whole thread is how is anyone  
> harmed if the plugin source code is included?  Ok, in theory, its a  
> plugin and meant to be standalone, but in practice its just a piece  
> of code like any other.

...here we're talking about two audio plugins:  would you want to  
include a selection of vst plugins where source is available?  How  
about extending this to freeframe video plugins, which are supported  
by both GEM and PDP?  I think it's enough to have the plugin loader,  
and then let the user find out about where to get plugins via a  
helpfile...

> There is a real harm in not including them: people won't use them  
> because of the large hurdle in getting them running.  And that to  
> me is sad since most code is written for people to use.

...other than the harm of bloat and extended compiles and  
packagings...I think a better way to get over the "large hurdle" of  
placing plugins in the correct place for use would be to follow what  
Iohannes has done with Gem's freeframe and shader/program loading  
code:  make it search the paths that pd already looks into, like  
loading any other patch...it works very nicely, and would be a good  
addition to the ladpsa loaders...

> When I include code in Pd-extended, I make sure its works on Mac OS  
> X, GNU/Linux, and Windows.  I would do the same for any plugin  
> source that I included.  Just look at Pd-0.38.4-extended.  I am not  
> saying there aren't problems with it, but look at the situation  
> before.

...you have done a great job with pd-extended, but you can't expect  
to cover all bases on such an open ended system, nor should you want  
to:  it'll just never happen...

> That's my final two bits, I've spent too much time on this topic...

...yes, please, move on...

james