search

lavalink-devs / Lavalink

Standalone audio sending node based on Lavaplayer.
https://lavalink.dev/
MIT License
1.59k stars 672 forks source link

Add LLTurbo client #1002

Closed Fyphen1223 closed 10 months ago

Fyphen1223 commented 10 months ago

Add LLTurbo client.

viztea commented 10 months ago

This is literally a fork of Shoukaku with a name change...

Fyphen1223 commented 10 months ago

Nah it supports voice receiving support on NodeLink... Should I send this to NodeLink not here?

Fyphen1223 commented 10 months ago

Um I think so, I will reopen this PR when I changed this client drastically. Sorry for disturbing.

1Lucas1apk commented 10 months ago

I think this modification is not valid for adding a package that supports other software that is not lavalink, the right thing to do would be to go to NodeLink and ask them to add it there

ThePedroo commented 10 months ago

I totally disagree. NodeLink follows LavaLink protocols. If this is not accepted by that reason, clients that adds a plugin support shouldn't be added since it's not LavaLink.

I didn't look at the source, but if this is only the addition of NodeLink features, it should be a PR to shoukaku, not its own client. Now, if it's an almost entirely new base without being mostly the same, it's okay, as we have erela.js forks that are now clients.

1Lucas1apk commented 10 months ago

I disagree, imagine a user making a fork in the coglink repo, and making a modification to a software that has different functionalities and then announcing it as a package with a different name, I feel like it's undervaluing the user's work, and it's not that question, he modified the shoudoku package to with nodelink functionalities, it's the same thing as having 2 shodouku only one with a different name, and functionality that won't work with lavalink, and it's unnecessary to try to put it on the client list, as you said in a certain part, if he at least hired the owner of the package to make it compatible it would also be ideal Or ask another software to add it as a "nodelink" client

ThePedroo commented 10 months ago

Please do not put words in my mouth.

"but if this is only the addition of NodeLink features, it should be a PR to shoukaku" "not its own client." "almost entirely new base without being mostly the same, it's okay"

devoxin commented 10 months ago

As it currently stands this library isn't distinctive enough to warrant adding to the client library list, therefore it won't be added until it is at a point where it could be considered its own client, rather than just a fork of.