Dave Jones wrote:
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.
Yes,
I've been busy pushing ccrma packages into Fedora proper in the past, but I've
stopped doing that due to lack of time (just keeping 200+ packages up to date
actually takes quite an amount of time).
> I've held off from proposing package reviews of several apps (not just
> music apps) because someone is maintaining rpms in another repo
>
I don't think thats a very good argument, if it can be in Fedora, it should be
in Fedora, trying to work with existing repo's on this is a good thing of
course, but our end users having Fedora + some patent / non free encumbered
repo should be all they need.
> 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"
Exactly the argument I was trying to make above, we need less 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?
Well if you encounter such a package, atleast at it to the wishlist:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/WishList
Also this is a clear example of the fact that we need _more_ packagers. So
first of all we need to put a gag in the mouth of those we keep saying their
aren't any interesting things left to package, and then we need to mayybe start
something like an active marketing campaign that we're looking for packagers,
and together with that start up some kind of mentoring group which works one
guiding new packages on there first steps. Which reminds me, we haven't been
promoting any contributers to mentor status for a while, this is another thing
we need to fix!
> 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.
I believe this is easily feasible given enough manpower, most ccrma packages
are pretty clean, they just need someone to push them through the review
process, then the biggest hurdle left is ... the rt-kernel.
Well since I seem to be talking to the right person now, I know you hate this
question, but ... how strongly would you object to having an rt kernel variant
within Fedora?
Regards,
Hans
_______________________________________________
Fedora-music-list mailing list
Fedora-music-list@xxxxxxxxxx
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-music-list
