On Thu, May 07, 2009 at 08:04:27AM +0700, Patrick Shirkey wrote: > Obviously. But if one installs ffmpeg from one of the reccomended yum > repostitories and the version of blender that is installed is not the > one that is compiled against ffmpeg then it just makes things confusing > and annoying for an average user. I disagree, it's just ignorance of the process. While ignorance can cause annoyance, it's not justified. > But I chose to install blender from a system that is setup to use the > non restricted packages and instead I get a restricted version. Why is a > restricted version given priority over a non restricted version? You should ask the people who prepared the non restricted package repository. Similar situation has happened to me, when a security update was made to a package in the restricted repository it had a version one higher than the one in the non-restricted repository. Between the time that the restricted packager had released a package, and the non-restricted packager had caught up and released one, any user who updated their packages would lose functionality. It is one of the risks of mixing restricted and unrestricted package repositories on your system. >>> Jack is included in fedora core IIUC so I have no idea why anyone >>> would compile mplayer without jack support. >> >> Why not ask them? I imagine you'd find either some bug, or they wanted >> to promote some other audio interface, or they've made it an optional >> package. > > There are no major bugs with jack and mplayer has had working jack > support for over 5 years now. If it's a political decision then that's a > pretty big call to make. I didn't find any optional packages with yum > search. Doesn't have to be a major bug with jack for such a decision to be made ... a minor bug can do it. And remember that it can be bugs that only exist between versions of jack and mplayer that you aren't using. Again, I think you should ask them. Whinging here about a distribution packager's choices when the packager isn't going to respond seems a pointless exercise. >>> To me it just highlights the state of multimedia support in Fedora >>> and possibly other OS's where there is still a level of disconnect >>> that IMO has been overcome in the LAD community and is shown by the >>> people who package the audio apps. >> >> On the other hand, it simplifies the packaging, and gets the packages >> out there in some form that basically works. It might not work to the >> level of excellence that we demand. A dumbed down distribution. > > Fedora is hardly a dumbed down distribution. IMO it's most likely a > problem with the people who package for multimedia on Fedora [...] So talk to them. > but it could be symptomatic of a more institutionalised problem where > Linux Multimedia is not at the same level that we can see with Linux > Audio across the board. Institutionalised? What institution? > I'm wondering if this could be partly due to the long term affect of > the annual LAC on the LAD community? Sorry, I don't know what these acronymns mean. -- James Cameron mailto:quozl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx http://quozl.netrek.org/ _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-user mailing list Linux-audio-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-user
