Summary: Review Request: rosegarden4
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189322
------- Additional Comments From green@redhat.com 2006-07-19 18:51 EST ------- (In reply to comment #13)
Patched and built on devel and FC5! FC4 is missing liblrdf, liblo and dssi though.
Great news!
I wasn't planning on putting those packages in FC4, as I don't have an FC4 machine to test with. Is this still something you would really like?
(moving out of the closed bug. Heh.)
Doesn't really matter to me personally, I keep current. This is something that should be coordinated amongst the SIG though. I think it would be best to have all or no audio apps available on FC4, rather than having some packages available and some not.
So what does everyone think? Should we make an effort to support FC4 or should we just concentrate on FC5 and beyond? Will FC4 even work, i.e. does it have a PAM and kernel that lets us enable real time support for jack? Would building for FC4 be helpful to Planet CCRMA, or just cause conflicts?
On Wed, 2006-07-19 at 18:37 -0500, Callum Lerwick wrote:
Summary: Review Request: rosegarden4
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189322
------- Additional Comments From green@redhat.com 2006-07-19 18:51 EST ------- (In reply to comment #13)
Patched and built on devel and FC5! FC4 is missing liblrdf, liblo and dssi though.
Great news!
Indeed...
I wasn't planning on putting those packages in FC4, as I don't have an FC4 machine to test with. Is this still something you would really like?
(moving out of the closed bug. Heh.)
Doesn't really matter to me personally, I keep current. This is something that should be coordinated amongst the SIG though. I think it would be best to have all or no audio apps available on FC4, rather than having some packages available and some not.
So what does everyone think? Should we make an effort to support FC4 or should we just concentrate on FC5 and beyond? Will FC4 even work, i.e. does it have a PAM and kernel that lets us enable real time support for jack?
FC4 works fine (that's what I'm still using here at CCRMA). It has realtime kernels, patched pam, etc, etc.
I would rather have things built in Extras for FC4 as well.
Would building for FC4 be helpful to Planet CCRMA, or just cause conflicts?
I imagine it would not cause conflicts but that's hard to tell in advance. If it does then I should resolve them.
-- Fernando
On Thu, 2006-07-20 at 18:16 -0700, Fernando Lopez-Lezcano wrote:
So what does everyone think? Should we make an effort to support FC4 or should we just concentrate on FC5 and beyond? Will FC4 even work, i.e. does it have a PAM and kernel that lets us enable real time support for jack?
FC4 works fine (that's what I'm still using here at CCRMA). It has realtime kernels, patched pam, etc, etc.
I would rather have things built in Extras for FC4 as well.
Good enough for me. I'll request FC4 branches for my packages tonight.
AG
On Thu, 2006-07-20 at 18:21 -0700, Anthony Green wrote:
FC4 works fine (that's what I'm still using here at CCRMA). It has realtime kernels, patched pam, etc, etc.
I would rather have things built in Extras for FC4 as well.
Good enough for me. I'll request FC4 branches for my packages tonight.
All of my audio related packages have been built for FC4 Extras: liblo, swh-plugins, raptor, liblrdf, lash, fluidsynth, dssi and hexter-dssi.
AG
On Fri, 2006-07-21 at 23:32 -0700, Anthony Green wrote:
All of my audio related packages have been built for FC4 Extras: liblo, swh-plugins, raptor, liblrdf, lash, fluidsynth, dssi and hexter-dssi.
Rosegarden has been built on FC4.
Also, FC4 is going into maintenance soon, when FC6t2 is released on Jul 26 according to the wiki.
-
Anthony Green -
Callum Lerwick -
Fernando Lopez-Lezcano