I've been spending a lot of time on the #opensourcemusicians channel
talking to Ubuntu Studio users about their kernel and latency times they're
getting. Seems like most of them are using g a stock kernel with the
preemptive option enabled and they are getting great latency results
(2ms)while utilizing the @audio group on their user. I ended up compiling
my own low latency kernel and I haven't had any issues with it yet. If this
is what we are missing for the spin I'd be happy to maintain packaging for
the kernel. I know ccrma has been behind a few kernel releases.
I saw the instructions for adding the real time patch for a tick less
kernel and from what I can tell it wouldn't be hard to get that rolling as
I'm not entirely sure what ccrma does differently with their kernels
compared to other Linux users, and I'm still a bit of a noob so I could be
off base with this, but I would reason that we should be able to just
utilize the same settings to archive similar performance enhancements.
I thought I read that ccrma uses a unique scheduler, but if we could get a
2ms latency time without it, the point may be moot.
Sorry replied off-list by mistake.
On 01/30/2013 03:17 PM, M. Edward (Ed) Borasky wrote:
> Where did we end up on Planet CCRMA? They're just starting to support F18.
Not sure what you mean? PlanetCCRMA is still essential for users of
Supercollider, PD and chuck (Nando? others i'm sure). We have moved a
lot of packages into F17/F18, albeit the simple ones. Hopefully we can
move supercollider into Fedora with nando's help, I'm just waiting on
the new boost packages to land in F19.
For rawhide, I just hard code the $releasever to 18 in
looks like the official website won't be released until Fedora 19. Some
of you have noticed the nightly composes have been failing due to a
poorly managed libicu soname bump. As I result I have changed the link
on the Fedora_Jam wiki page to show only successful builds.
So Jorn and others have done the hard yards for F18, with little thanks
from the Spins team, but I am still really proud of what we've achieved.
So, no time for dwelling on the past, lets look to the future. There is
absolutely no doubt the Jam will be official for F19, so we have another
cycle to separate us from the rest of the audio releases out there. Me,
I'm going to be tracking the Anaconda, New Firstboot projects to ensure
we get what we need - there were a few things we had to forgo given the
limitations of where these projects currently stand.
I've also re-stirred the pot on the designs team list for wallpaper and
KDM icons, but that shouldn't stop any of us submitting ideas into the
mix as well . I would have thought the design team guys would jump at
the chance to dabble with this theme - lot of space for creative
expression, but interest seems minimal for now (but I really like the
banner they did for us).
We also need to come up with a definitive comps group ie. yum group
install "Audio" (or another name - ideas welcome) and have this
available at install time in Anaconda. Using the package list from the
spin is probably a good place to start, but we probably could trim it
down somewhat - we don't want the footprint to be too large - that's
what the spin is for. Again, ideas welcome.
I hesitated cross-posting from Linux Audio User until it was posted to
the Ubuntu Studio list.
So show Fedora and PlanetCCRMA some love at the survey below.
-- Jeff -- a1g0rhythm
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2013 12:39:05 +0000
From: Pablo G?mez Poch <pablogomez(a)pablogomez.com>
To: linux-audio-user <linux-audio-user(a)lists.linuxaudio.org>
Subject: [LAU] [Survey] Audio distro
I just want to know what distros are you using in 2013, it would be
helpful for programmers and help newbies to choose.
So I created a poll:
I am forwarding this message to the Fedora music group.
Not very long ago Arkkra Enterprises decided to make MUP a free and open
source project. (Until now you had to pay for a licence)
If we compare Mup to Lilypond (I use both): Lilypond is more powerful,
tweakable, and flexible. Mup is much faster, takes less diskspace, and the
user manual has less pages. Both are capable of producing professional
And for the sake of freedom of choice it would be nice if also MUP could
be part of Fedora.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2013 21:39:47 -0600 (CST)
From: Arkkra Enterprises <support(a)arkkra.com>
Subject: Re: [mup-users] Beta release of Mup 6.1
We are hoping to get Mup included in Linux distributions, so
definitely Fedora is of interest. There are a lot of distributions
out there, and each seems to have its own procedures and rules,
which can take a while to learn. So we'd appreciate help or suggestions
from people who have some experience with any distributions,
like Fedora. The mup.spec file we use to generate the rpm packages
that we provide is in the source package in the "extras" directory,
so that should be a good place to start.
We chose to have that build Mup with static libraries,
so that it should possible to run it on almost any Linux--
even an extremely old version--without depending
on a particular libc version, but for Fedora
or any specific distribution, it should, of course, use the standard
dynamic library version for that release. There are probably
other guidelines that Fedora or other distributions requires
that we have not yet had time to research, but someone else already knows.
So if you make changes to be more compatible, please send us the changes.
While we won't promise to pick up every patch anyone provides,
we can at least look at folding it or something similar
into some future release. And if someone is already familiar with
the intricacies of getting a package into some distribution
such as Fedora, and is willing to help guide Mup through that process,
that could be very helpful. Just let us know, so we can help avoid
any unnecessary duplication of effort.
Bill and John support(a)arkkra.com
Arkkra Enterprises http://www.arkkra.com
the gnome-guitar package was recently orphaned and I've picked it up. Up
until now I've never used it but it seems quite useful (chord chart and
It totals about 1.1M in total including dependencies, I'm thinking we
add it to the spin.
Are there any other instruments/interest groups we may be missing?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On 18 January 2013 06:13:29 Brendan Jones wrote:
> On 01/18/2013 01:48 AM, Christopher Antila wrote:
> > On 17 January 2013 21:15:34 Brendan Jones wrote:
> >> Better to treat this as a remix from here (but still link to the
> >> nightlies). Anyone have some space somewhere where we can host this?
> > ...
> > I could probably find a way to host static images of this release.
> Will absolutely be on the official page for Fedora 19. Release
> engineering simply couldn't do it time. It is approved and official in
> every other way
I have a few more questions:
1.) Is it acceptable to host an official Fedora spin on non-Fedora
2.) Which nightly image should we take as the static one to host?
3.) Will there be other hosts? I'm wary of using my university's web space as
the *only* official host of a Fedora spin.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----