> Summary: Review Request: rosegarden4 > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189322 > > ------- Additional Comments From green@xxxxxxxxxx 2006-07-19 18:51 EST ------- > (In reply to comment #13) > > Patched and built on devel and FC5! FC4 is missing liblrdf, liblo and dssi though. > > Great news! > > I wasn't planning on putting those packages in FC4, as I don't have an FC4 > machine to test with. Is this still something you would really like? (moving out of the closed bug. Heh.) Doesn't really matter to me personally, I keep current. This is something that should be coordinated amongst the SIG though. I think it would be best to have all or no audio apps available on FC4, rather than having some packages available and some not. So what does everyone think? Should we make an effort to support FC4 or should we just concentrate on FC5 and beyond? Will FC4 even work, i.e. does it have a PAM and kernel that lets us enable real time support for jack? Would building for FC4 be helpful to Planet CCRMA, or just cause conflicts?
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ Fedora-music-list mailing list Fedora-music-list@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-music-list
