On Wed, Apr 09, 2008 at 07:42:02PM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote: > 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? Not incredibly keen tbh. I'd sooner just add -rt to the regular kernel package and suck it up, but that obviously takes us further from our 'upstream first' mantra. Ingo & Thomas are getting sizable chunks of it merged upstream, but I don't think we'll be seeing it all merged soon, but then again, F10 is quite a ways off, and with a few more kernel releases, who knows. Depends how objectionable the remaining bits are I guess. Given that so many people are now distributing products based on this work, getting it all in mainline is obviously important, and there's no shortage of manpower helping drive it there. All this said, I personally haven't hit any issues with things like MIDI in Fedora where the -rt kernel would have helped me. Maybe my gear is special, but latency between me hitting a key on a synth and having that note show up in rosegarden, and a sound being created is well below perceivable. I'm interested to hear any test cases you guys may have that justify why you need -rt. Right now the guys working on that stuff typically have a bunch of 'boring' test cases more tailored towards replicating situations like stock trades and the like. If we can construct additional use-cases I'm sure Ingo, Thomas & co would be very interested to hear about them. Especially if these cases are triggering different latency paths. Dave -- http://www.codemonkey.org.uk _______________________________________________ Fedora-music-list mailing list Fedora-music-list@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-music-list
