Hello! [Sat, 06 Sep 2003] David García Garzón wrote: > Thanks for the informative link and sorry for the noise into the bugtracking > system. I agree that ladspa-host is not very useful for dependency checking, > althought is not as basic as the mentioned glibc, but it is useful for > package searching. > > I am doing an article about alsa-ladspa-jack and i was searching for a list of > possible host to try. ladspa-host only pointed to ladspa-sdk, galan and > ecasound. You could do the following: rj@schuh:~$ grep-available -F Suggests,Recommends,Depends -s Package ladspa-plugin Package: snd-dmotif Package: xmms-ladspa Package: sweep Package: glame Package: galan Package: ecasound2.2 Package: snd Package: libardour0 Package: libecasound7c102 Not much though... > Maybe a deb-tag is more useful for such purposes. But anyway ladspa-host > should exist or not exist at all. Do you agree with me in that point? Sure. True. > On Dissabte 06 Setembre 2003 20:45, you wrote: > > Hello! > > > > [Sat, 06 Sep 2003] David GarcÃa Garzón wrote: > > > This packages should provide the ladspa-host virtual package since it > > > can be used as such. > > > > Please read > > > > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=96873 > > > > on a discussion about this. There is no real use. > > I will close this report and reopen if you have new input on this. > > I hope you are OK with that. > > > > > > Robert.
Attachment:
pgpCQmzY_69LI.pgp
Description: PGP signature