[PD-dev] including [dssi~] in Pd-extended
james tittle
tigital at mac.com
Sun Mar 19 21:39:05 CET 2006
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
More information about the Pd-dev
mailing list