[Devel] Thoughts on lv2-universe-YYYYMMDD.tar.bz2
brendan.jones.it at gmail.com
Sat Feb 11 05:18:52 PST 2012
On 02/08/2012 05:40 PM, David Robillard wrote:
> On Wed, 2012-02-08 at 15:38 +0800, Ricardo Wurmus wrote:
>> On 8 February 2012 15:16, Brendan Jones<brendan.jones.it at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 02/08/2012 04:13 AM, David Robillard wrote:
>>>> I have wrestled with this suggestion for some time; whether to release
>>>> core and all extensions and examples etc. (everything in the repo,
>>>> essentially) in one tarball.
>>> It would certainly expedite any packaging in distros. That could only help
>>> adoption I would think.
>> I second Brendan's comment. In Arch Linux lv2core is available via the
>> official repository, but a number of extensions are not; they are only
>> available in the unofficial user repositories where one often finds
>> outdated versions. Keeping this all in one tarball guarantees
>> compatibility and would certainly be a good idea.
>> (Incidentally, the situation with Haskell looked similar before the
>> introduction of the Haskell Platform.)
> Good point. I guess nothing will really change at the source level,
> since each individual element will still have its own version,
> pkg-config file, etc. If we want to establish the use of
> system-installed extensions, the things need to actually be there...
lv2-spec / lv2-framework? both boring, but fit
> lv2-galaxy? (universe is inappropriate)
> just lv2?
Sorry its taken a while to get back to you on this.
I've been thinking about what this means to packaging the LV2 spec in
general. After some thought I believe Fedora would end up packaging each
separately in any case, unless all of the spec extensions were versioned
the same as lv2core, but that would not happen right?
More information about the Devel