On Wed, 2008-02-06 at 16:05 +0200, Juuso Alasuutari wrote:
> >>>>> User interface standard
Indeed, why not?
> Another question is how needed/desired something like this actually is.=20
Looking at the massively disparate interfaces of the multitides of linux
audio software, I'd say it's needed quite badly.
> (Does the VST SDK come with a HIG document?)
I assume not. Given that no two VST UIs seem to work the same way, it
would appear not.
> >>>>> Automatic client installation
I think we can stay out of trouble even by providing a package
management system that isn't the disto's.
> Otherwise I suggest you go ask about it on #debian. :)
I'm asking you.
> >> Using autopackage is out of the question,=20
> Sure, you will be able to quickly install externally provided packages=20
You answered your own question.
> just like you can quickly unpack binary tarballs in=20
You're assuming that a package management system that isn't the distro's
would necessarily break the distro's package management system. That
isn't the case.
> >> If a session manager would take on package management like this -- whi=
I'm not proposing LASH become a package manager but that it uses a
> >> -- it would have to work absolutely=20
Sorry, the question was obviously ambiguous. By "normal" I meant that
the automatic package installation feature would be disabled.
> >> Considering how you've been defending LASH from features that you deem=
Complete package management isn't within the concept of session loading,
but package installation is.
> >>>>> Redesign client/server communication
I mean both.
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc
Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----