On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 3:39 PM, Tom M. <tom.m...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > 3. It wouldn't make sense to change ladspa.h if it was included in > fluidsynth. So it wouldn't be a fork. > > People tend to have fancy ideas ;) > > > > 4. If ladspa.h "upstream" would change in a way that would force plugins > to be recompiled (and this won't happen), the only required change in > fluidsynth would be to update the ladspa.h file. > > If there is **any** change to upstream ladspa.h we should update our > own copy. That's not going to happen. First of all, there is no upstream ladspa.h. Secondly, ladspa.h hasn't changed since 2002, and even then it was common to include ladspa.h. Even alsa-lib included ladspa.h. > Furthermore I am afraid that bundling ladspa.h could be the begin of > bundling even more dependencies. > > It's hardly a dependency. It's a header file with almost no content, except for a lot of comments.
_______________________________________________ fluid-dev mailing list fluid-dev@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/fluid-dev
