On Wed, 2006-05-10 at 03:40 -0500, Callum Lerwick wrote:
Hello everyone. I needed Rosegarden for a class, and since CCRMA
built for FC5 and x86_64, I attempted to build the CCRMA source package
myself. And discovered I needed the latest Rosegarden to build with GCC
4.1, which changed to scons, which has some icky bugs, one of which I
fixed with a patch from Fernando I dug up on a mailing list, then I
discovered a bug in mock, etc... And since I went through all the effort
I submitted it to Extras.
I did a lot of googling trying to find out if there was any activity as
far as merging CCRMA into Extras and found nothing recent. (It appears
this list was created shortly *after* I looked...) I had intended to
email Fernando directly but never got around to it. Heh.
Oh well... :-) Too bad we did not coordinate efforts for this... I have
rosegarden4 for fc5 now.
I could use some advice on what to do about the timing problem...
meaning to take that up on Rosegarden's mailing list...)
You are using just the regular Fedora kernels, right? They have HZ=250
which is regretful for this type of work (you mention that in
bugzilla)... the Planet CCRMA kernels still using HZ=1000 :-p
I tried booting into 2096_FC5 and yes, I get the warning. Other things I
tried: setting it to rtc in rosegarden and upping the user frequency to
1024 (there is a /sys thing you can use to do this). The first time I
tried to start rosegarden after that the system froze solid (reset
button was the only way out). After rebooting rosegarden starts, but
still issues the warning - but according to the messages it prints it
appears to have switched to using rtc. Maybe we could do timing tests to
confirm the resolution... I guess this is something to ask questions
about in the rosegarden list. One thing to note is that the rtc
preference (at least) is sticky, that is the next time I start
rosegarden it shows that. Still, the messages printed suggest that
rosegarden is first using "auto", and then switching to rtc.
I took it upon myself to slap up a quickie SIG page on the wiki:
I chose the name Media Production. Media allows us to include video as
well (Cinelerra). Production emphasizes that distribution and
consumption (patented codecs, media players, PVRs, streaming servers...)
do not fall directly under the SIG's focus.
So does "Media Production SIG" sound good to everyone?
Sounds good to me. That has always been the focus of Planet CCRMA (ie:
I've been doing my best to hurry up the review of jack. Its
week(s) so I'm busy, sleep deprived, and stressed out, however one of my
finals *is* for Digital Synth & Composition, so I can justify spending
at least some time on audio stuff. :)
Yep, jack is in the critical path of a lot of packages.