-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hi Simon : I've obviously never encountered anything like your use case. How is it that it takes you 3-4 months to become productive in a newly-installed Fedora release? It only takes me about 3-4 hours--clearly you're doing something time-consuming. My intuition suggests you're probably compiling applications that aren't in the Fedora or Planet CCRMA repositories... but a rolling release would make this worse, because your applications would break at unexpected times. So to continue the solution-finding discussion, I have two questions: 1.) Why does it take you 3-4 months to be productive in a Fedora release, and how could that be reduced to 5 minutes? Let's hear your ideal situation, no matter how impractical it is (might be!) 2.) You suggested that "more packagers" isn't the only way to an audio-production Fedora spin. What other strategies did you have in mind? OpenSuse Build Service? Christopher. On 01/02/2012 05:01 AM, Simon Lewis wrote: > Hello Christopher > > Many thanks for your response. > > Yes, the kernel updates in fc15 are very positive and in terms of > device support the 3.1.x (aka 2.6.41.x) is very good. > > My main grip is with the fixed releases as there always comes a > point when I have no choice but to upgrade to a newer fedora > release because I need a particular (new) feature in an application > that will not build against the out-dated libraries in the > currently installed released, and the libraries cannot be updated > because of soname/sonumber bumps, etc.. > > Just to give an example, I have just received notification from > the digikam developers that the mpeg video export has been > reintroduced after 2 years absence (whilst digikam was rebuilt > against kde4). Unfortunately digikam 2.4 cannot be built against > the KDE 4.6.x libraries.... > > The preupgrade package/route has proved to work well over the > years... but there are always a number of apps that I need to build > from scratch and configuration options that I need to set after > upgrading to get a working system to my requirements. I don't have > that much spare time as I would like to concentrate on Linux and > usually need 3-4 months after a new fedora release before I can be > creative/productive again. Thus from a user point of view a rolling > update is very attractive. Doubling up computers to bridge the gap > is not a financial option. > > Does fedora need more packagers, or should all options to reduce > the workload be investigated? Is maintaining several releases or > just one rolling release cause more work? I can understand fixed > releases for enterprise systems whereby a large number of > proprietary applications (e.g. CAD/CMS systems) are installed, but > this is not the fedora user base. > > Best regards, Simon > > Am 01.01.2012 22:57, schrieb Christopher Antila: >> Hi: >> >> On 01/01/2012 05:14 AM, Simon Lewis wrote: >>> ... The biggest contribution that the Fedora-music team can >>> make is too persuade the fedora-core team to introduce a >>> rolling update release aka openSUSE Tumbelweed and Linux Mint. >>> The multimedia apps (on linux) are bleeding edge whereby the >>> developers of the most interesting apps are willing to make bug >>> fixes and introduce new features quickly. Unfortunately, these >>> improvements upstream never filter down to the fedora repos >>> mostly because there are too few fedora packagers. A single >>> rolling release with snapshot releases for marketing purposes >>> would meet fedora aims for an actual distribution and >>> significantly reduce the work load. >> >> I used to be a supporter of the rolling-release idea, but it >> seems to me that Fedora already strikes a good balance. As you >> noted, it all comes down to the initiative and number of package >> maintainers. >> >> Some packages, such as the kernel, are generally updated when >> new upstream versions are ready. More often than not, it seems, >> both of the currently-maintained Fedora releases are running or >> are about to run the same kernel version. Even KDE has generally >> followed this update pattern, although it was broken with Fedora >> 15 and 16, which have KDE 4.6 and 4.7, respectively. >> >> All I'm really saying is that convincing everybody to switch to >> a rolling release is going to be more effort than it's worth, >> because Fedora already accepts major version updates to packages >> in the same OS release cycle. As you noted, what we need is more >> packagers. >> >> >> Christopher. _______________________________________________ >> music mailing list music@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/music > > _______________________________________________ music mailing list > music@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/music -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.18 (GNU/Linux) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJPB4JvAAoJEInCktGVqZ8Vh9gH/0ieYprxnvQDHoa4Cd/I0r8N BE/brMO+J6dj40wOamJToXK9GPoveZdkSfutDS/+MEiHViL+/lojEMzNEkwVUPoC yOOMKuDMwf+O+62hCcR1RrMB8V5B5MTIFP31x3we1yd1HyVLmXz5kacbUGO2HeS6 t75tReWeRiCPAO90MqF/82XGEEVgBRA/flvLGv7RkRJp1FUgV66SrKGmGDIqQL7q T+oYOqObX9l6sX6k5Y04eWO+xDZllIsR61EvE+W7jstVBWydocphLePC2uo4h7ej PMMRe+PY4cu38LzKL6MgY8jDtxIjEw1u0nI2iv7tR07+qQuwxSc5shECKZwhKrk= =335r -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ music mailing list music@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/music
