[Fedora-music-list] Supporting FC4?

[Fernando Lopez-Lezcano]

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 at 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