On Thu, 2012-03-22 at 14:48 -0400, Paul Davis wrote:
A date is nicer, it sorts. A directory listing of such things would be
a real nightmare.
Note this tarball would just be a distribution for users to build, we
actively don't want packages depending on lv2 everything with one
version number at the source level.
... Well, heck, maybe we actually do. If it's all distributed in one
tarball anyway, there's not much point in checking for every little
piece you use.
There is a certain elegant simplicity in depending on the state of "LV2"
as of YYYY-MM-DD. I am very attached to the decentralized nature of
LV2, but that doesn't mean the actual packaging has to be a shotgun
The way reality has worked out, stable extensions need to be curated at
lv2plug.in or they tend to rot and confuse people. Perhaps the
extension mechanism should only really be used during the development
process, and we actively *do* want "LV2" to be a collection of
peer-reviewed specs that work nicely together you can grab in one place
and get on with your work.
In other words, perhaps a decentralized specification is a failed idea,
and we don't actually want to encourage independent
extension /publication/. You're still free to actually design and
implement features with no centralized authority, but if you want it to
actually be implemented by others, it should move in to LV2 proper when
It is with reluctance that I admit this, but that seems to be the
conclusion of the experiment.
Linux-audio-dev mailing list