dssi-vst: RPMFusion material?

[Nicolas Chauvet]

2009/4/26 Orcan Ogetbil <oget.fedora at gmail.com>:
> What is VST?
> VST's and VSTi's are audio plugins and instruments usually written for
> Windows. They are professionallyand  widely used in Digital Audio
> Workstations (DAWs), such as Cubase.
> In fact, they are mostly nonfree (I found some free (as in beer) VST's
> but I didn't encounter a free (as in freedom) VST's yet).
> Here is more information in case you are interested:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_Studio_Technology
>
> There is a dssi plugin wrapper designed for using these Windows VST
> plugins in Linux. And I packaged it:
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=492221
>
> In order to use dssi-vst on x86_64, it needs to be built against 32bit
> wine + 64bit other libraries. Now here are my questions:
>
> 1- Does our buildsys support such builds? Fedora's x86_64 buildsys
> does not contain wine, and I'm reluctant to submit this package just
> i386, because it won't be much useful with x86_64 audio software
> (ardour, rosegarden etc)
If this is a buildsys question, it would matters to ask at a buildsys
admin, and/or the wine maintainer.
If wine got prevented from the Fedora buildsys, that's not to prevent
building with it, but more likely to prevent linking against 32bit
libraries on 64bit builder.
Maybe it can be allowed to have wine.i386 in some override repository,
or to build the -devel subpackage (where the headers live), as noarch
so it can ends in the x86_64buildroot.


> 2- Since there are no known free VST plugins which one can use with
> dssi-vst, I am also not sure if this is Fedora material. What do you
> folks think?
This is a question for FE-Legal for a first step, then for us if it get refused.
My opinion is that it should be accepted by FE-Legal. as soon as we
don't provides theses binary only vst plugins.
(users can do whatever they want after Fedora is installed, that
shouldn't be our problem).


Nicolas (kwizart)