[Devel] Fwd: Re: Thoughts on lv2-universe-YYYYMMDD.tar.bz2

[David Robillard]

On Sat, 2012-02-11 at 20:51 +0100, Brendan Jones wrote:
> On 02/11/2012 08:32 PM, David Robillard wrote:
[...]
> > Maybe the best way to go would be to simply do both.  Release a big
> > tarball for convenience, but everything else stays the same.
> > Convenience is the main argument for a single release anyway.
> 
> I think so. I see no reason why you shouldn't release the spec as a
> single tarball. However, it is unclear why they are released separately
> in any case. Why not release all of them together and just bump the
> minor release as changes are made to each individual extension? I mean
> it is the spec right?

Because the extensions are 100% completely independent from the core
spec, and generally each other.  They just happen to be the ones hosted
at lv2plug.in.

I don't really think I like tying all their version numbers together for
that reason, though I guess increasing version numbers never actually
breaks anything.  There would be an extremely large amount of NEWS
entries with absolutely nothing in them.

Maybe a cling a bit to the decentralized nature of LV2 despite that not
really working out (in practice it's been nice stuff gets maintained at
lv2plug.in and everything else rots or gets totally lost over time), but
I think the tools getting packaged and easy to use on any domain would
help with this.  It's nicer to have everything at lv2plug.in, but I
don't want to *force* this, so the toolchain shouldn't. 

That said, the build system and such would be a looooooot simpler if it
was just one big package.

> > The other was documentation.  The problem is that LV2 documentation
> > cross-references between extensions and such.  This could be achieved
> > with separate packages as long as packages (or their corresponding doc
> > packages) depend on whatever they reference (which they probably should
> > anyway) and there is an "LV2 documentation root" directory, which would
> > have the same URI-like structure as the includes.  Something like this
> > will have to be done for installable plugin documentation as well.
> >
> That's something that package maintainers can take care of. However when
> its not immediately obvious, those doc references (dependancies) should
> be noted in the README.
> 
> > I am not sure where to make such a directory.  You Fedora folks in
> > particular seems to have strong issues with "ownership".  Could, for
> > example, lv2core (or lv2core-doc) create /usr/share/doc/lv2 and other
> > packages put their documentation in there?
> 
> Absolutely. The issue about ownership is more in relation to what
> constitutes a development package as opposed to a library/application.

Okay.  I will see if I can make this work.

-dr