I know someone is going to tell me to probably post this on the bugtracker, but I am still new to ardour and am not sure of the internal workings of how Ardour checks for invalid plugins
– but today I was trying to look out for incompatible(or known-problematic) plugins in my list and want to know
Do I need to worry that I use gcc4 or gcc5? Users should not have to work at the terminal with ldd commands to check for problematic plugins, when the application’s scan-for-plugins should be doing the full check for this.
I see mention of checking for full compatibility with ldd commands – this is too much baggage to carry for standard users. xd
Eg, searching for “self-contained”(on the forums) and here I am trying the nightly-beta of Ardour6 – I want to be able to effectively avoid repeating falling into the same confusion whether to report a-bug-or-is-it-ardour issue knowing that Ardour6 has been adopting a new paradigm which breaks legacy plugins.
It is not until I add a guitarix plugin to the processor list, and then try to load its gui that I then can spot the red-alert led telling me that the gui failed.
^ Shouldn’t ardour be able to fully determine this prior adding it to the plugin list?
According to the night-build page, there is a mention of problematic plugins
“Known affected plugins: abgate , ams-lv2 , amsynth , beatslash , deteriorate , eq10q , guitarix , ingen , midimsg , newtonator , triceratops , vocproc .”
… and I only noticed this a little while later after getting red-alert errors in ardour – so folks why can’t the plugin-check avoid adding problematic plugins when it first sees them?
If a user can determine this with ldd commands, why not include that as part of the plugin-check?
This system of having broken plugins listed can be improved because a user should not have a plugin added that is only known to work “half-way”. Ardour can do better than this.