On Wed, Apr 09, 2008 at 10:34:14AM -0400, Greg DeKoenigsberg wrote: > >> Really, I first envisioned this as a way to help bring CCRMA and Fedora > >> together. Because the fact is, most of the CCRMA stuff should live in > >> Fedora anyway. But the fact that CCRMA requires the RT kernel and other > >> non-standard stuff may make that difficult. > > > > I don't think it is the kernel itself. After all I think all apps will > > work fine on a stock Fedora kernel. They will not be able to run > > reliably at low latencies but they will run. The "problem" (if there is > > any) is a combination of many other factors. The -rt changes continue to trickle upstream. hopefully eventually this problem will become moot. > > Probably what is needed is more packagers that also use the stuff in day > > to day music-making (BTW, I'm not complaining about current packagers), > > and are commited to maintaining packages in the long term. And keeping > > on top of new versions as they are released. That is what makes Planet > > CCRMA tick. But packaging is notoriously unsexy stuff to do. I know. > > Yep. And yet, we've got hundreds of volunteers doing exactly that in the > Fedora world. There are many open questions about the quality of these > packages, though. Would it help any if somone else stepped up and started maintaining analogs of ccrma packages in 'core' ? I'd probably be interested in finding time to maintain a few of them myself if this made peoples lives easier. I've held off from proposing package reviews of several apps (not just music apps) because someone is maintaining rpms in another repo > It may well be that CCRMA should continue to be fully independent, but > have a much stronger base of Fedora packages to draw from, and Nando, when > you see fit, you can supersede a Fedora package with a newer package in > CCRMA. That would be a pretty good outcome, too. I'm beginning to wonder if 3rd party repos are doing us more harm than good in the long run. The reason I bring this up is because after several discussions with people yesterday here at the Linux Foundation collaboration summit, I heard things like.. "I prefer ubuntu/debian because it has more packages." "true, but what packages are you missing from Fedora?" "xyz" "Oh, we have that packaged but it's in repo z" A lot of users won't go hunting for extra repositories. If it isn't in the repos that Fedora comes bundled with, to them, it doesn't exist in Fedora. And for those that are aware of 3rd party repos, there seems to be a reluctance to adding them to avoid the infamous "rpm hell" with conflicting deps between repos. I'm sure this small sample of users isn't representative, but it's definitly holding some users back. Personally, I know I've given up after finding something isn't packaged in Fedora on many occasions, and it pains me to say it, but it's sometimes been quicker/easier to go download a binary of the same opensource app for my mac than it is to get the same thing running under Fedora. Anyway, hyperbole over. How can we improve the situation? > Basically: you're doing awesome work, maybe the best work in the Linux > music space, and we at Fedora need to continue to find incremental ways to > lighten your load without getting in your way. > How many CCRMA packages currently have Fedora analogues at this point, > anyway? The apps shouldn't pose too much of a problem to get merged, but I'm wondering how things like jack fit into the new world order of pulseaudio. I guess Nando already has to deal with this somehow, so maybe it's already a solved problem, but things like this and the kernel are the only technical hurdles afaics? In my utopian world, I'd love to see ccrma just become a spin of the main fedora. Allowing people who want a more multi-purpose install to also install those same packages without the hassle of additional repos. Dave -- http://www.codemonkey.org.uk _______________________________________________ Fedora-music-list mailing list Fedora-music-list@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-music-list
