Subject: Re: bug#64109: [PATCH 1/2] gnu: dpf-plugins: Update to 1.7.

From: Ludovic Courtès <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2023 23:05:40 +0200

Hi,

I applied the first patch (upgrade).

Sughosha <[email-masked]> skribis:

>>>From a74eb4c58d45d30450ba8b70e4faddee52b37f13 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> Message-Id: <[email-masked]>
> In-Reply-To: <[email-masked]>
> References: <[email-masked]>
> From: Sughosha <[email-masked]>
> Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2023 16:39:21 +0200
> Subject: [PATCH 2/2] gnu: dpf-plugins: Add native-search-paths.
>
> * gnu/packages/music.scm (dpf-plugins): Add native-search-paths.

[...]

> @@ -6372,6 +6372,25 @@ (define-public dpf-plugins
>             liblo ; for dssi plugins
>             jack-1 ; for standalone applications
>             mesa))
> +    (native-search-paths
> +     (list (search-path-specification
> +            (variable "CLAP_PATH")
> +            (files '("lib/clap")))
> +           (search-path-specification
> +            (variable "DSSI_PATH")
> +            (files '("lib/dssi")))
> +           (search-path-specification
> +            (variable "LADSPA_PATH")
> +            (files '("lib/ladspa")))
> +           (search-path-specification
> +            (variable "LV2_PATH")
> +            (files '("lib/lv2")))
> +           (search-path-specification
> +            (variable "VST2_PATH")
> +            (files '("lib/vst")))
> +           (search-path-specification
> +            (variable "VST3_PATH")
> +            (files '("lib/vst3")))))

At first sight I think this is incorrect: search paths should be
specified in the patch that honors them.  See
<https://guix.gnu.org/manual/devel/en/html_node/Search-Paths.html>.

Am I right that ‘dnf-plugins’ does not honor them, but instead ‘ladspa’
(maybe?) does?  (I’m no expert here.)

Ludo’.