12:31 p.m.
Kudos to whoever pushed the LADSPA SWH plugins to Extras! Thank you!
Now, here's my thoughts: this is a set of LADSPA plugins. It works
strictly in conjunction with the package named "ladspa" - indeed, it is
an extension to it.
Therefore, I believe that the name of the plugins package should include
the string "ladspa" somewhere. Examples:
ladspa-swh-plugins
Or perhaps even more logical:
ladspa-plugins-swh
This name shows clearly the fact that it's actually part of the LADSPA
suite. Moreover, the highest, least specific, denominator (ladspa) comes
first, the second highest (plugins) comes next, while the most specific
denominator (swh) comes last. Kind of like the YYYYMMDD scheme.
My proposal is to settle to a clear rule to name these packages and
apply it consistently to all LADSPA plugins. There are quite a few that
can still go to Extras:
http://ccrma.stanford.edu/planetccrma/software/ladspaworld.html
And this one too:
http://ccrma.stanford.edu/planetccrma/software/soundapps.html#SECTION0006...
--
Florin Andrei
http://florin.myip.org/
3:43 p.m.
On 7/27/06, Florin Andrei <florin(a)andrei.myip.org> wrote:
Now, here's my thoughts: this is a set of LADSPA plugins. It
works
strictly in conjunction with the package named "ladspa" - indeed, it is
an extension to it.
Therefore, I believe that the name of the plugins package should include
the string "ladspa" somewhere. Examples:
ladspa-swh-plugins
Or perhaps even more logical:
ladspa-plugins-swh
for what it's worth, i agree completely.
--
daneasley(a)gmail.com
dan(a)towndowner.com dan(a)burntpossum.com
http://towndowner.com http://burntpossum.com
1:32 p.m.
On Thu, 2006-07-27 at 16:43 -0400, Dan Easley wrote:
On 7/27/06, Florin Andrei <florin(a)andrei.myip.org> wrote:
> Now, here's my thoughts: this is a set of LADSPA plugins. It works
> strictly in conjunction with the package named "ladspa" - indeed, it is
> an extension to it.
> Therefore, I believe that the name of the plugins package should include
> the string "ladspa" somewhere. Examples:
>
> ladspa-swh-plugins
>
> Or perhaps even more logical:
>
> ladspa-plugins-swh
for what it's worth, i agree completely.
So, is there a consensus? What is it?
I would go for: ladspa-plugins-NAME
What if the name of the package already contains "plugins"?
-- Fernando
7:02 p.m.
On Tue, 2006-08-01 at 11:32 -0700, Fernando Lopez-Lezcano wrote:
I would go for: ladspa-plugins-NAME
Yes, I think that's better.
What if the name of the package already contains "plugins"?
Then one could argue that the string "plugins" is simply moved to a
different place.
Arguably, ladspa-NAME could also be acceptable and it would nicely take
care of the special case you mentioned.
--
Florin Andrei
http://florin.myip.org/
2:35 p.m.
On Wed, 2006-08-02 at 17:02 -0700, Florin Andrei wrote:
On Tue, 2006-08-01 at 11:32 -0700, Fernando Lopez-Lezcano wrote:
> I would go for: ladspa-plugins-NAME
Yes, I think that's better.
> What if the name of the package already contains "plugins"?
Then one could argue that the string "plugins" is simply moved to a
different place.
Arguably, ladspa-NAME could also be acceptable and it would nicely take
care of the special case you mentioned.
I'd like to push the existing Planet CCRMA plugin collections to extras
so we should agree on naming before I get started (I'd prefer to switch
names only once - I would have to include proper obsoletes/provides so
that the extra packages have a clean upgrade path for current Planet
CCRMA users)...
I currently have (at Planet CCRMA):
cmt -> ladspa-plugins-cmt
mcp-plugins -> ladspa-plugins-mcp
rev-plugins -> ladspa-plugins-rev
vco-plugins -> ladspa-plugins-vco
fil-plugins -> ladspa-plugins-fil
amb-plugins -> ladspa-plugins-amb
blop -> ladspa-plugins-blop
tap-plugins -> laspa-plugins-tap
caps -> ladspa-plugins-caps
pvoc -> ladspa-plugins-pvoc
(and swh which is already in extras)
There are a lot of "original package names" that are already
NAME-plugins, so maybe it would be better to go with the crowd and agree
on:
ladspa-NAME
where NAME includes plugins or not depending on the original name.
Or even better:
ladspa-NAME-plugins
where you add "plugins" if it is not already there.
This last one does sound better to my ears.
-- Fernando
2:44 p.m.
On Thu, 2006-08-03 at 12:35 -0700, Fernando Lopez-Lezcano wrote:
Or even better:
ladspa-NAME-plugins
where you add "plugins" if it is not already there.
This last one does sound better to my ears.
This is my favorite as well. I'll rename Extra's swh-plugins package
one there's agreement.
Let's just go ahead with this plan unless anybody objects by, say,
tomorrow. :-)
AG
2:44 p.m.
On Thu, 2006-08-03 at 12:35 -0700, Fernando Lopez-Lezcano wrote:
I'd like to push the existing Planet CCRMA plugin collections to
extras
Awesome!
ladspa-NAME-plugins
where you add "plugins" if it is not already there.
This last one does sound better to my ears.
This is fine because: if you search for "fil-plugins" in Extras, you
will find it; if you search for "blop" you will find it too.
Consistent naming scheme, unambiguous identification that's not too far
from the original name, and ease of finding via a repo search should be
the criteria - and your proposal meets all of them.
--
Florin Andrei
http://florin.myip.org/
10:40 p.m.
One thing of note, is we seem to have settled into a NAME-dssi naming
convention for DSSI plugins. Seems technically inconsistent but I
suppose the difference is ladspa packages usually contain a whole bunch
of plugins, whereas a dssi plugin tends to be just one.
ladspa-NAME-plugins works for me. Its pretty much all aesthetics in the
end.
1:48 a.m.
On Sat, 2006-08-05 at 22:40 -0500, Callum Lerwick wrote:
One thing of note, is we seem to have settled into a NAME-dssi
naming
convention for DSSI plugins. Seems technically inconsistent but I
suppose the difference is ladspa packages usually contain a whole bunch
of plugins, whereas a dssi plugin tends to be just one.
It should be dssi-NAME
The reverse is more difficult to search in a list of packages, or simply
when you do an 'ls' in a directory.
It's just common sense, the least specific denominator must come first,
as in the YYYYMMDD format which preserves the order.
--
Florin Andrei
http://florin.myip.org/
5:56 p.m.
On Thu, 2006-07-27 at 10:31 -0700, Florin Andrei wrote:
Kudos to whoever pushed the LADSPA SWH plugins to Extras! Thank you!
Now, here's my thoughts: this is a set of LADSPA plugins. It works
strictly in conjunction with the package named "ladspa" - indeed, it is
an extension to it.
Therefore, I believe that the name of the plugins package should include
the string "ladspa" somewhere. Examples:
ladspa-swh-plugins
This has finally been done for FC-6 and rawhide. It may take a day or
two to show up in the mirrors.
AG
8:58 p.m.
On Wed, 2006-12-27 at 15:56 -0800, Anthony Green wrote:
On Thu, 2006-07-27 at 10:31 -0700, Florin Andrei wrote:
> Kudos to whoever pushed the LADSPA SWH plugins to Extras! Thank you!
>
> Now, here's my thoughts: this is a set of LADSPA plugins. It works
> strictly in conjunction with the package named "ladspa" - indeed, it is
> an extension to it.
> Therefore, I believe that the name of the plugins package should include
> the string "ladspa" somewhere. Examples:
>
> ladspa-swh-plugins
This has finally been done for FC-6 and rawhide. It may take a day or
two to show up in the mirrors.
I got it today, seems fine.
Now I have to find time to push more plugin collections to extras...
-- Fernando
11:13 p.m.
Fernando Lopez-Lezcano wrote:
Now I have to find time to push more plugin collections to extras...
The day when one can do "yum install ladspa\*" and get _everything_
installed gets closer. :-)
Thank you guys, this is awesome.
--
Florin Andrei
http://florin.myip.org/
6326
days inactive
6482
days old
11 comments
5 participants
participants (5)
-
Anthony Green -
Callum Lerwick -
Dan Easley -
Fernando Lopez-Lezcano -
Florin Andrei