RE: Linkging libraries in machines.

[mts]

> My suggestion is to avoid using external libraries if you can. Otherwise
> Gearlib may never have anything put into it. :-). Also, part of the
> purpose of Gearlib is to prevent having to install a zillion libraries
> (possibly all with fun version problems) to use a given song setup.
> Reducing the "brittleness" factor of the machine repository is a
> definite goal.

Totally agree

>
> But on the other hand, we shouldn't ignore when a free/gpl library is
> doing great and nontrivial signal processing. I wouldn't think that
> having Gearlib require FFTW is a big deal as long as everyone agrees
> it's good and needed, but it is *so* easy for this to get out of hand
> that we should restrain ourselves.


What about a down sized version fo the same functionality? Any volunteers ?

....

> >       Maybe we should put together a list of basic machines/routines
> to
> > kick gearlib off?  Maybe using the sourceforge set up, people could
> ask
> > for or be assigned tasks?
>
> Sounds like a good idea. If we have people discuss API's first then the
> best ideas will tend to float to the top. This is especially important
> if gearlib is to provide services for a lot of machines... the API has
> to be clean.
>

I think that, as seems to me, Gearlib should be a ordered collection
of small code snipets, every one of them mantained by diferent people, we
can
start to work now, and by the David's algorithm of "Best float to the top"
the generalization and standarisation came by itself.