Menu
▾
▴
linuxsampler-devel
|
From: David R. <d...@dr...> - 2011-11-23 19:11:47
|
Since the last one hasn't been applied yet, I figured I'd take the opportunity to simplify these extensions by merging files into state (the roles of these were confusing people). Still compatible with last state patch, though. Patch available at: http://drobilla.net/files/linuxsampler_lv2_state_0_4.diff This corresponds to what is implemented right now in both Ardour3 and Qtractor. Cheers, -dr (P.S. If my previous message makes it through a moderator, it was rejected for being too large, just linking to patch instead here) |
|
From: Rui N. C. <rn...@rn...> - 2011-11-24 16:58:36
|
On 11/23/2011 07:11 PM, David Robillard wrote: > Since the last one hasn't been applied yet, I figured I'd take the > opportunity to simplify these extensions by merging files into state > (the roles of these were confusing people). Still compatible with last > state patch, though. > > Patch available at: > > http://drobilla.net/files/linuxsampler_lv2_state_0_4.diff > > This corresponds to what is implemented right now in both Ardour3 and > Qtractor. > > Cheers, > > -dr > > (P.S. If my previous message makes it through a moderator, it was > rejected for being too large, just linking to patch instead here) > applied. linuxsampler svn trunk rev.2291 thanks -- rncbc aka Rui Nuno Capela rn...@rn... |
|
From: David R. <d...@dr...> - 2012-01-17 16:27:01
Attachments:
linuxsampler_lv2_state_0_5.diff
|
Aaaaaaand yet another state patch :) This one properly conforms to the state extension by using/preferring features passed to the state methods if they are present. It does not break anything (i.e. the ones passed to instantiate will still be used as before). -dr |
|
From: David R. <d...@dr...> - 2012-01-18 01:59:53
|
On Wed, 2012-01-18 at 01:41 +0100, Christian Schoenebeck wrote: > On Tuesday 17 January 2012 17:05:07 David Robillard wrote: > > Aaaaaaand yet another state patch :) > > > > This one properly conforms to the state extension by using/preferring > > features passed to the state methods if they are present. It does not > > break anything (i.e. the ones passed to instantiate will still be used > > as before). > > Just commited. Thanks! y/w > BTW, Markus Kropp just pointed out (on the LinuxSampler mailing list) that the > LV2 support code didn't compile with Debian "Squeeze". So I also commited the > attached patch for the LV2 header location. However the LV2 development files > in Debian "Squeeze" are quite old. Shouldn't we better always ship the latest > LV2 headers with the LinuxSampler source code instead? <lv2.h> is the old-style include. It is still installed there, but things are migrating to the new-style URI-like includes. There's nothing really wrong with using <lv2.h> for now (for extensions, though, the *only* system include is the URI-style one). Bundling headers in your source is fine, and how most things have been done in the past, but I am trying to encourage a migration to sane packaging and system-installed extension headers because the duplication is pretty crazy. That said, for the time being, including them is still probably the pragmatic thing to do until packagers catch up. lv2.h is probably an exception since it is always present if lv2core is installed. Everyone I know of depends on lv2core via pkg-config and includes the system lv2.h in the usual way (as if it were a library). -dr |
|
From: Christian S. <sch...@li...> - 2012-01-18 02:11:05
Attachments:
lv2_header_loc.diff
|
On Tuesday 17 January 2012 17:05:07 David Robillard wrote: > Aaaaaaand yet another state patch :) > > This one properly conforms to the state extension by using/preferring > features passed to the state methods if they are present. It does not > break anything (i.e. the ones passed to instantiate will still be used > as before). Just commited. Thanks! BTW, Markus Kropp just pointed out (on the LinuxSampler mailing list) that the LV2 support code didn't compile with Debian "Squeeze". So I also commited the attached patch for the LV2 header location. However the LV2 development files in Debian "Squeeze" are quite old. Shouldn't we better always ship the latest LV2 headers with the LinuxSampler source code instead? CU Christian |
|
From: Christian S. <sch...@li...> - 2012-01-18 12:16:39
|
On Wednesday 18 January 2012 02:59:44 David Robillard wrote: > <lv2.h> is the old-style include. It is still installed there, but > things are migrating to the new-style URI-like includes. There's > nothing really wrong with using <lv2.h> for now (for extensions, though, > the *only* system include is the URI-style one). > > Bundling headers in your source is fine, and how most things have been > done in the past, but I am trying to encourage a migration to sane > packaging and system-installed extension headers because the duplication > is pretty crazy. That said, for the time being, including them is still > probably the pragmatic thing to do until packagers catch up. > > lv2.h is probably an exception since it is always present if lv2core is > installed. Everyone I know of depends on lv2core via pkg-config and > includes the system lv2.h in the usual way (as if it were a library). Yes, lv2core is available in most distributions. However e.g. on Debian "Squeeze", it is fairly old (v3.0, may 2009). So the question is just whether the LV2 support along with the extensions will work completely as expected with such an old lv2core. If yes, we leave it as it is right now. Since you are actively working on the extensions, I must leave it to you to decide whether to include lv2core with the sampler sources. CU Christian |
|
From: Markus W. K. <kr...@ko...> - 2012-01-19 09:56:28
|
well, i installed form http://www.ftp.debian.org the package lv2core (version 6) and then lv2-extensions-good (latest version). installation with gedebi made no problems. in the next days i try to compile linuxsampler again with this packages - i will tell you as it works. if yes, it will be a very easy solution for debian-squeeze. CU Markus Am Wed, 18 Jan 2012 12:17:00 +0100 schrieb Christian Schoenebeck <sch...@li...>: > On Wednesday 18 January 2012 02:59:44 David Robillard wrote: > > <lv2.h> is the old-style include. It is still installed there, but > > things are migrating to the new-style URI-like includes. There's > > nothing really wrong with using <lv2.h> for now (for extensions, though, > > the *only* system include is the URI-style one). > > > > Bundling headers in your source is fine, and how most things have been > > done in the past, but I am trying to encourage a migration to sane > > packaging and system-installed extension headers because the duplication > > is pretty crazy. That said, for the time being, including them is still > > probably the pragmatic thing to do until packagers catch up. > > > > lv2.h is probably an exception since it is always present if lv2core is > > installed. Everyone I know of depends on lv2core via pkg-config and > > includes the system lv2.h in the usual way (as if it were a library). > > Yes, lv2core is available in most distributions. However e.g. on Debian > "Squeeze", it is fairly old (v3.0, may 2009). So the question is just whether > the LV2 support along with the extensions will work completely as expected > with such an old lv2core. If yes, we leave it as it is right now. > > Since you are actively working on the extensions, I must leave it to you to > decide whether to include lv2core with the sampler sources. > > CU > Christian > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Keep Your Developer Skills Current with LearnDevNow! > The most comprehensive online learning library for Microsoft developers > is just $99.99! Visual Studio, SharePoint, SQL - plus HTML5, CSS3, MVC3, > Metro Style Apps, more. Free future releases when you subscribe now! > http://p.sf.net/sfu/learndevnow-d2d > _______________________________________________ > Linuxsampler-devel mailing list > Lin...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linuxsampler-devel ----- Musix-Blog - Über meine Kompositionen - http://www.musix-de.blogspot.com Musix-Wiki - Den Computer zum Komponieren einrichten - http://www.musix-wiki.org Klavierunterricht in Köln - http://www.koelnklassik.de/klavierunterricht.htm Markus W. Kropp Buchholzstr. 36 51061 Köln Tel.:0221-4719703 kr...@ko... |
|
From: David R. <d...@dr...> - 2012-01-19 16:02:16
|
On Wed, 2012-01-18 at 12:17 +0100, Christian Schoenebeck wrote: > On Wednesday 18 January 2012 02:59:44 David Robillard wrote: > > <lv2.h> is the old-style include. It is still installed there, but > > things are migrating to the new-style URI-like includes. There's > > nothing really wrong with using <lv2.h> for now (for extensions, though, > > the *only* system include is the URI-style one). > > > > Bundling headers in your source is fine, and how most things have been > > done in the past, but I am trying to encourage a migration to sane > > packaging and system-installed extension headers because the duplication > > is pretty crazy. That said, for the time being, including them is still > > probably the pragmatic thing to do until packagers catch up. > > > > lv2.h is probably an exception since it is always present if lv2core is > > installed. Everyone I know of depends on lv2core via pkg-config and > > includes the system lv2.h in the usual way (as if it were a library). > > Yes, lv2core is available in most distributions. However e.g. on Debian > "Squeeze", it is fairly old (v3.0, may 2009). So the question is just whether > the LV2 support along with the extensions will work completely as expected > with such an old lv2core. If yes, we leave it as it is right now. > > Since you are actively working on the extensions, I must leave it to you to > decide whether to include lv2core with the sampler sources. The API in the header has never changed, it should be fine. -dr |
|
From: Markus W. K. <kr...@ko...> - 2012-01-20 10:05:28
|
well, i installed the latest lv2core and lv2-extensions-good on my debian-squeeze from the debian-server. compiling was very well without any failures. with jack qsampler and linuxsampler works properly. greetings! markus aka musix ----- Musix-Blog - Über meine Kompositionen - http://www.musix-de.blogspot.com Musix-Wiki - Den Computer zum Komponieren einrichten - http://www.musix-wiki.org Klavierunterricht in Köln - http://www.koelnklassik.de/klavierunterricht.htm Markus W. Kropp Buchholzstr. 36 51061 Köln Tel.:0221-4719703 kr...@ko... |
|
From: David R. <d...@dr...> - 2012-01-28 01:38:36
Attachments:
linuxsampler_lv2_state_0_6.diff
|
On Wed, 2012-01-18 at 01:41 +0100, Christian Schoenebeck wrote: > On Tuesday 17 January 2012 17:05:07 David Robillard wrote: > > Aaaaaaand yet another state patch :) > > > > This one properly conforms to the state extension by using/preferring > > features passed to the state methods if they are present. It does not > > break anything (i.e. the ones passed to instantiate will still be used > > as before). > > Just commited. Thanks! Aaaaaaaaaaaand another one. Couple of minor screw-ups in the previous. -dr |
|
From: Andreas P. <and...@br...> - 2012-02-11 11:12:28
|
On 2012-01-28 02:38, David Robillard wrote: > Aaaaaaaaaaaand another one. Couple of minor screw-ups in the previous. Committed. Sorry for taking so long. /Andreas |
|
From: David R. <d...@dr...> - 2012-02-12 20:24:12
|
On Sat, 2012-02-11 at 12:12 +0100, Andreas Persson wrote: > On 2012-01-28 02:38, David Robillard wrote: > > Aaaaaaaaaaaand another one. Couple of minor screw-ups in the previous. > > Committed. Sorry for taking so long. No worries, thanks. -dr |
Thanks for helping keep SourceForge clean.
X