-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
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
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?
On 01/02/2012 05:01 AM, Simon Lewis wrote:
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:
> 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
> 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
> Christopher. _______________________________________________
> music mailing list music(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
_______________________________________________ music mailing list
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.18 (GNU/Linux)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----