On Wed, 2006-07-19 at 18:37 -0500, Callum Lerwick wrote:
> Summary: Review Request: rosegarden4
> ------- Additional Comments From green(a)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
> 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
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
I imagine it would not cause conflicts but that's hard to tell in
advance. If it does then I should resolve them.