On Wed, 2006-07-19 at 18:37 -0500, Callum Lerwick wrote: > > 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! Indeed... > > 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? FC4 works fine (that's what I'm still using here at CCRMA). It has realtime kernels, patched pam, etc, etc. I would rather have things built in Extras for FC4 as well. > Would building for FC4 be helpful to Planet CCRMA, or just cause > conflicts? I imagine it would not cause conflicts but that's hard to tell in advance. If it does then I should resolve them. -- Fernando _______________________________________________ Fedora-music-list mailing list Fedora-music-list@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-music-list
