GNU bug report logs -
#38570
[PATCH 1/2] gnu: Add gx-plugins-lv2.
Previous Next
To reply to this bug, email your comments to 38570 AT debbugs.gnu.org.
Toggle the display of automated, internal messages from the tracker.
Report forwarded
to
guix-patches <at> gnu.org
:
bug#38570
; Package
guix-patches
.
(Thu, 12 Dec 2019 01:16:01 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Acknowledgement sent
to
Alexandros Theodotou <alex <at> zrythm.org>
:
New bug report received and forwarded. Copy sent to
guix-patches <at> gnu.org
.
(Thu, 12 Dec 2019 01:16:02 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Message #5 received at submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]
Hi,
I deleted many gx-* packages since upstream provides a meta-repository
for them. FWIW Arch does the same:
https://www.archlinux.org/packages/community/x86_64/gxplugins.lv2/
Thanks,
Alex
[0001-gnu-Add-gx-plugins-lv2.patch (text/x-patch, attachment)]
[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]
Information forwarded
to
guix-patches <at> gnu.org
:
bug#38570
; Package
guix-patches
.
(Thu, 12 Dec 2019 09:12:01 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Message #8 received at 38570 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
Hi Alexandros,
> I deleted many gx-* packages since upstream provides a meta-repository
> for them. FWIW Arch does the same:
> https://www.archlinux.org/packages/community/x86_64/gxplugins.lv2/
I think it’s better to err on the side of granularity here and provide
the lv2 plugins as individual packages.
We could have a meta package that simply propagates all of the
individual packages.
--
Ricardo
Information forwarded
to
guix-patches <at> gnu.org
:
bug#38570
; Package
guix-patches
.
(Thu, 12 Dec 2019 10:15:01 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Message #11 received at 38570 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]
Hi Ricardo,
Thanks for taking a look at this.
On Thu, 2019-12-12 at 10:11 +0100, Ricardo Wurmus wrote:
>
> I think it’s better to err on the side of granularity here and
> provide
> the lv2 plugins as individual packages.
>
> We could have a meta package that simply propagates all of the
> individual packages.
I think this is a very bad idea in this case, considering:
a) No one will ever want to install specific gxplugins. Usually people
want to install the "gxplugin suite" - or even all available LV2
plugins
b) There are !!!!!!43!!!!!! plugins here. Do you realize how painful
and unnecessary it would be to add and maintain these packages?
Especially considering the following point
c) The total installed file size for all of these is only 7mb
d) These are all from the same person, who explicitly provides a meta-
repository for packagers so it makes sense to offer them in the same
package
If you insist though, I would likely just use my own channel for this
as I don't want to go through the trouble of adding 40 extra packages,
each only a few KB in size.
Thanks,
Alex
[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]
Information forwarded
to
guix-patches <at> gnu.org
:
bug#38570
; Package
guix-patches
.
(Tue, 25 Feb 2020 15:36:02 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Message #14 received at 38570 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]
Hi Ricardo,
I apologize for my tone in the last message, it sounded like I was
yelling at you. Would you still prefer to package these separately? It
would need 43 new packages which isn't very efficient or worth the
effort in my opinion considering that they are mostly very
small/minimal plugins.
Also, it would be great if you could have a look at this meta-package
patch for installing all available lv2-plugins:
https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=38571 .
Thanks,
Alex
On Thu, 2019-12-12 at 10:13 +0000, Alexandros Theodotou wrote:
> Hi Ricardo,
>
> Thanks for taking a look at this.
>
> On Thu, 2019-12-12 at 10:11 +0100, Ricardo Wurmus wrote:
> > I think it’s better to err on the side of granularity here and
> > provide
> > the lv2 plugins as individual packages.
> >
> > We could have a meta package that simply propagates all of the
> > individual packages.
>
> I think this is a very bad idea in this case, considering:
> a) No one will ever want to install specific gxplugins. Usually
> people
> want to install the "gxplugin suite" - or even all available LV2
> plugins
> b) There are !!!!!!43!!!!!! plugins here. Do you realize how painful
> and unnecessary it would be to add and maintain these packages?
> Especially considering the following point
> c) The total installed file size for all of these is only 7mb
> d) These are all from the same person, who explicitly provides a
> meta-
> repository for packagers so it makes sense to offer them in the same
> package
>
> If you insist though, I would likely just use my own channel for this
> as I don't want to go through the trouble of adding 40 extra
> packages,
> each only a few KB in size.
>
> Thanks,
> Alex
[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]
This bug report was last modified 5 years and 18 days ago.
Previous Next
GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham,
1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd,
1994-97 Ian Jackson.