On Sun, 2009-11-08 at 11:08 +0100, Simon Lewis wrote:
Assuming that the user does and will install packages from all 3 repos
(Fedora, RPMFusion and PlanetCCRMA) then there are in fact only 2
differences between the standard fedora spin and a "studio" type spin:
(1) A kernel with enhanced pre-emption (the so called "real-time"
kernel - although this name is misleading as RT-PRIO settings can be
used effectively with the standard kernel)
(2) The automatic configuration of the RT-PRIO settings and assigning
the users to the group that has real-time priority.
Both currently available from Planet CCRMA. Rt kernels are available and
the rtirq package in conjunction with a more modern jack server than in
Fedora (with the proper priority and open rt permissions for everybody)
make both work out of the Planet CCRMA box.
With regards to (1) the kernel with enhanced pre-emption should
be available in the standard Fedora repository.
Yes, that would be a must for serious audio work.
Indeed the standard and enhanced pre-emption kernels should always
have the same version number to maintain compatibility with the
graphic drivers etc..
That is a noble goal but it would be actually impossible to accomplish
in the real world unless a lot of manpower were to be dedicated to that.
Just as an example: there is _no_ rt patch available for the 2.6.30.x
kernel series - so it would be impossible to create an rt kernel that
matches the current fc11 kernel. Of course it would be possible to
rebase the patch but who would do it? If that were "easy" it would have
It would be very little additional work for the kernel compilers to
generate the kernel with pre-emption at the same time as the standard
kernel (This is standard policy at openSUSE -since 10.3 - and Ubuntu -
That is not what the kernel maintainers at Fedora have said in the past.
Last time I tried to push for this they just said they don't have the
resources to do it (and presumable no interest as well). They definitely
do not want to have two kernels in Fedora.
As a long time packager I can say that hardly ever I find something that
means "very little additional work". _Especially_ when packaging
kernels :-) You are welcome to prove me wrong by packaging them :-)
Regarding (2) it would be nice to have an administrator's tool to
this manually as well.
I would prefer to see as many packages as possible in the Fedora and
RPMFusion repos as both these repos are subject to "rolling updates".
That is too say the packages are always kept upto date (which is one
reason why I like Fedora). The PlanetCCRMA repos are not subject to
Hmmm, I upgrade packages as soon as I can. Usually that means faster
than Fedora (generally). Maybe I misunderstand what rolling update
As to the work load: (1) and (2) above apply to the standard fedora
distribution. The packages with tricky licensing issues to RPMFusion
or PlanetCCRMA or Livna
Am 08.11.2009 04:23, schrieb Orcan Ogetbil:
> On Sat, Oct 24, 2009 at 10:34 AM, Simon Lewis wrote:
> > Hello
> > Please advise if a multimedia spin for Fedora 11 is available (or for Fedora
> > 12 planned)?
> > The standard Fedora 11 installation does not by default set the RT-PRIO for
> > jackuser or pulse audio etc., etc. Neither does the standard Fedora 11
> > installation automatically assign all users to the jackusers group.
> > For the multimedia spin to be successful these and the other necessary
> > configuration settings must be taken care of in the background.
> > Alternatively an "multimedia administration tool" for easy
> > the pam/usergroup settings in an RT-enviroment should be written.
> > Further, the standard-Kernel and RT-Kernel with same version number should
> > be available form the standard Fedora repository. This practice of having
> > the same version number for all kernel types makes it very easy for graphic
> > driver support etc., and means that Fedora can be booted with either kernel
> > type for testing purposes.
> > Regards, Simon.
> Hi. Yes there was an idea but I don't think we have enough people to
> generate and maintain a spin.
> Moreover I am not sure where the spin should originate: Fedora,
> RPMFusion or PlanetCCRMA?
> The latter two has nice packages that we would like the have in the
> spin, but we can't allow some (if not all) of these packages if the
> spin is Fedora based.
> We need ideas, manpower, time etc...