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

[Frank Barknecht]

Hallo,
Hans-Christoph Steiner hat gesagt: // Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:

> Regular pd has enough of those issues for a lifetime.  Its  sad that
> we are generating more issues rather than working together  to fix
> them.

That actually is the point why I am not in favour of putting foreign
sources in the Pd CVS: They would require additional work in setting
up build systems, keeping them up to date etc. Especially when totally
separate stuff like plugins in DSSI, LADSPA or VST formats is
concerned, I'm still not convinced why we should bother with including
them. As I wrote several mails ago: By definition these are meant to
be plugged in and not to be included. That's the whole point of a
plugin format and the beauty of LADSPA, DSSI.

I'm not so strictly against keeping some libraries to link against in
some clearly seperate tree of the Pd CVS. I don't think, it's a good
idea, but I can also understand your point that it may make packaging
easier on some operating systems in the end and if it's in a totally
different tree it may not do any harm.

But plugins IMO should be a no-go area, not only for source code, but
also for binary installer packages. The DSSI people may start their
own binary packaging system, but that really is none of our business.
And including fluidsynth just because we would want to build the
fluidsynth-dssi-plugin is even worse. Additionally we would also need to
include some more sources, as that are used by fluid-dssi, like the
ALSA headers or a compat. library and more. This won't stop.

All this of course is just IMO.

Ciao
-- 
 Frank Barknecht                 _ ______footils.org_ __goto10.org__