On Fri, 17 Jul 2009 14:01:31 -0500 (CDT) Brent Busby <brent@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, 17 Jul 2009, Tim Jones wrote: > > > I've been settling into my own Gentoo system, and so far haven't > > had any trouble with unmasked pro-audio packages (for numbered > > versions anyway) interfering with anything else in portage. It > > seems to me that pro-audio is not very well maintained. I've had to > > hack several ebuilds to get them to work, but for the ones that do, > > likely any masks are just because no one has tested the ebuild, or > > because it is live. > > Since the time I wrote earlier, I've had significant progress getting > things installed, mostly from avoiding the live CVS versions of > everything, and settling for Jack 0.116.2, which is still 0.116 or > newer as cautioned on the Ardour site. (I compiled with no DBus or > firewire support, since I don't use Ffado or FreeBob.) Everything > now seems to coexist well with my other apps and system libraries. > I've got Ardour 2.7.1. > > My next challenge is to pick a version of rt-sources and get that > configured and setup. I usually prefer to setup a kernel with > modules that my current system has or is likely to ever have, and put > the ones that are needed to boot into the kernel statically, so I'm > going to see if I can do without an initrd. That certainly out to be > possible though. I just don't like having ninety drivers I don't use > autoloaded by 'discover' during the bootup...it's annoying. > > I wonder if it's better to go with the unmasked rt-sources-2.6.16-r29 > (which I see has a very high patchlevel number, so apparently a lot > of time is going into it), or the newest rt-sources-2.6.29.2-r11, > which is more current, but masked. I asked this recently on the > Pro-Audio overlay list, so I'll see what they say there. > > > But more people care about jack and Ardour so you're likely to find > > more support on those. Anyway, I would say don't be afraid of the > > masked packages. > > Yeah, I've seen so many packages in Pro-Audio that needed unmasking > to install that I've just started treating that as par for the course > in the overlay. I'm still sticking with stable packages for my base > system though. > > > I generally haven't built any dbus support, and I'm not sure how > > jack itself uses dbus. Not sure about "classic" either, but for > > those undocumented flags, I find the best thing to do is just open > > the ebuild and see what options those flags are passing to > > configure (which you should be able to figure out without any > > knowledge of how ebuilds work) and then see what those do. > > I did finally find a websvn interface to the changelogs on the > overlay site that described that: It's for if you'd like to compile > both Dbus *and* non-Dbus Jack -- you can enable "dbus" and "classic" > together. I've just gone with 0.116.2 and no Dbus, and that seems to > coexist with everything else nicely. You can, but it's not a very good idea, read up on it in: [LAD] jackd/jackdbus : D-Bus or not D-Bus... _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-user mailing list Linux-audio-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-user
