From hollywoodb at gmail.com Sun Oct 1 05:24:52 2006 From: hollywoodb at gmail.com (Wade Nelson) Date: Sun, 01 Oct 2006 00:24:52 -0500 Subject: [Fedora-music-list] Kernel & Repo questions Message-ID: <1159680292.19979.4.camel@hb-130.fedora> I just found out about this project, very cool... I'm currently running FC5+PlanetCCRMA on my desktop workstation. 1) is there a repository for fedora-music project yet or will it become available as it is merged into extras? 1b) on a production system should I stick with CCRMA for now? 1c) is the project currently targeting FC5 or is it targeting compatibility with FC6 and future versions of Fedora Core? 2) As this project gets under way will there be a kernel available featuring the real-time preemption patch by Ingo Molnar? This has made a huge difference for me and is essential to making my system actually usable for live recording. From green at redhat.com Sun Oct 1 12:18:54 2006 From: green at redhat.com (Anthony Green) Date: Sun, 01 Oct 2006 05:18:54 -0700 Subject: [Fedora-music-list] Kernel & Repo questions In-Reply-To: <1159680292.19979.4.camel@hb-130.fedora> References: <1159680292.19979.4.camel@hb-130.fedora> Message-ID: <1159705134.6511.27.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Sun, 2006-10-01 at 00:24 -0500, Wade Nelson wrote: > I just found out about this project, very cool... I'm currently running > FC5+PlanetCCRMA on my desktop workstation. > > 1) is there a repository for fedora-music project yet or will it become > available as it is merged into extras? We're just putting things that make sense into Extras. Help is appreciated. > 1b) on a production system should I stick with CCRMA for now? Fedora Extras only provides a fraction of the total CCRMA repo, and it's unlikely it will ever contain everything in that repository (kernel packages, for instance). In places where there's overlap (where we've put something in Extras from CCRMA), I don't think there's any reason to prefer the CCRMA packages over Fedora Extras (unless you're running FC4 or lower). I think all of the Extras packages have higher version/release numbers than the CCRMA packages anyways, so yum should just sort this out for you. > 1c) is the project currently targeting FC5 or is it targeting > compatibility with FC6 and future versions of Fedora Core? I think everything so far has gone into FE5 and development (FE6). Some packages were also placed in FE4. > 2) As this project gets under way will there be a kernel available > featuring the real-time preemption patch by Ingo Molnar? This has made > a huge difference for me and is essential to making my system actually > usable for live recording. There are no plans to put kernels into Fedora Extras. We just don't have the infrastructure or policy to support this in Fedora Extras. I'm hopeful that Ingo's patches will get merged upstream some day. Of course, this may take years. Who knows. If you're interested in helping move things to Extras, just shout out. AG From fedora at leemhuis.info Sun Oct 1 12:29:45 2006 From: fedora at leemhuis.info (Thorsten Leemhuis) Date: Sun, 01 Oct 2006 14:29:45 +0200 Subject: [Fedora-music-list] Kernel & Repo questions In-Reply-To: <1159705134.6511.27.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <1159680292.19979.4.camel@hb-130.fedora> <1159705134.6511.27.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <451FB4B9.6000602@leemhuis.info> Anthony Green schrieb: > On Sun, 2006-10-01 at 00:24 -0500, Wade Nelson wrote: >> 1b) on a production system should I stick with CCRMA for now? > Fedora Extras only provides a fraction of the total CCRMA repo, and it's > unlikely it will ever contain everything in that repository (kernel > packages, for instance). [...] >> 2) As this project gets under way will there be a kernel available >> featuring the real-time preemption patch by Ingo Molnar? This has made >> a huge difference for me and is essential to making my system actually >> usable for live recording. > There are no plans to put kernels into Fedora Extras. We just don't > have the infrastructure or policy to support this in Fedora Extras. I'm > hopeful that Ingo's patches will get merged upstream some day. Of > course, this may take years. Who knows. I'm still fine if kernels get allowed in Extras repos *if* they are build from the same spec file and in the same step as the kernel in Core. But building stuff in Core and shipping it in Extras is not possible yet. And davej would have to agree to maintain yet another kernel-variant. Cu thl From hollywoodb at gmail.com Sun Oct 1 15:48:24 2006 From: hollywoodb at gmail.com (Wade Nelson) Date: Sun, 01 Oct 2006 10:48:24 -0500 Subject: [Fedora-music-list] Kernel & Repo questions In-Reply-To: <1159705134.6511.27.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <1159680292.19979.4.camel@hb-130.fedora> <1159705134.6511.27.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <1159717704.16021.17.camel@hb-130.fedora> On Sun, 2006-10-01 at 05:18 -0700, Anthony Green wrote: > On Sun, 2006-10-01 at 00:24 -0500, Wade Nelson wrote: > > I just found out about this project, very cool... I'm currently running > > FC5+PlanetCCRMA on my desktop workstation. > > > > 1) is there a repository for fedora-music project yet or will it become > > available as it is merged into extras? > > We're just putting things that make sense into Extras. Help is > appreciated. ... > > 1b) on a production system should I stick with CCRMA for now? > > Fedora Extras only provides a fraction of the total CCRMA repo, and it's > unlikely it will ever contain everything in that repository (kernel > packages, for instance). > > In places where there's overlap (where we've put something in Extras > from CCRMA), I don't think there's any reason to prefer the CCRMA > packages over Fedora Extras (unless you're running FC4 or lower). I > think all of the Extras packages have higher version/release numbers > than the CCRMA packages anyways, so yum should just sort this out for > you. Are the packages in Extras built with the same support for LADSPA, JACK, and such; i.e. is the functionality the same as the CCRMA packages? > > 1c) is the project currently targeting FC5 or is it targeting > > compatibility with FC6 and future versions of Fedora Core? > > I think everything so far has gone into FE5 and development (FE6). Some > packages were also placed in FE4. ... > > 2) As this project gets under way will there be a kernel available > > featuring the real-time preemption patch by Ingo Molnar? This has made > > a huge difference for me and is essential to making my system actually > > usable for live recording. > > There are no plans to put kernels into Fedora Extras. We just don't > have the infrastructure or policy to support this in Fedora Extras. I'm > hopeful that Ingo's patches will get merged upstream some day. Of > course, this may take years. Who knows. So far I've been using (FC5) " yum --exclude='*kernel*' update " I've been running with strictly the CCRMA repos enabled, since I noticed for one that the CCRMA repo looked like it had a modified version of PAM. From: http://ccrma.stanford.edu/planetccrma/software/installtwosix.html "The core packages include the patched kernel itself and newer, more up to date versions of the ALSA sound drivers (including some tools and packages that are not part of the normal Fedora Core install). It also brings in a patched version of PAM that has access to realtime scheduling and memory locking for all users." Also, from: http://ccrma.stanford.edu/planetccrma/software/installtwosix.html "The Planet CCRMA package collection is managed through the Yum utilities. You will need to update yum to a newer version that has support for installing older kernels (you need this to be able to later install the core components of Planet CCRMA (realtime kernel, etc, etc)." /planetccrma/5/i386/yum-2.6.1-0.1.rhfc5.ccrma.noarch.rpm Is this now deprecated? And finally, and again from: http://ccrma.stanford.edu/planetccrma/software/installtwosix.html "If you have not already done it, you should update your machine to the latest version of the Fedora Core packages. They will provide important security and functionality upgrades. The Planet CCRMA repository includes the Fedora Core updates, you can install what is available..." Having had ONLY planetccrma, planetcore, planetextras, and planetupdates repos enabled (and system up to date), I enabled Extras repo and the only updates currently available for the software I use are lash, ladspa, and python-mutagen. I notice however that Extras has many of the same versions of packages that I have installed, less the 'ccrma' tag in the filename. > If you're interested in helping move things to Extras, just shout out. > > AG I've no experience in building packages, but as long as the Extras packages offer the same functionality as the CCRMA packages I'd be happy to enable the Extras repo again and help test the apps that I actually know well how to use, such as JACK & LADSPA tools, Ardour, Hydrogen, etc etc... -------------- | hollywoodb | -------------- From nando at ccrma.Stanford.EDU Fri Oct 6 18:41:00 2006 From: nando at ccrma.Stanford.EDU (Fernando Lopez-Lezcano) Date: Fri, 06 Oct 2006 11:41:00 -0700 Subject: [Fedora-music-list] Kernel & Repo questions In-Reply-To: <1159717704.16021.17.camel@hb-130.fedora> References: <1159680292.19979.4.camel@hb-130.fedora> <1159705134.6511.27.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1159717704.16021.17.camel@hb-130.fedora> Message-ID: <1160160060.8387.15.camel@cmn61.stanford.edu> On Sun, 2006-10-01 at 10:48 -0500, Wade Nelson wrote: > On Sun, 2006-10-01 at 05:18 -0700, Anthony Green wrote: > > On Sun, 2006-10-01 at 00:24 -0500, Wade Nelson wrote: > > > I just found out about this project, very cool... I'm currently running > > > FC5+PlanetCCRMA on my desktop workstation. > > > > > > 1) is there a repository for fedora-music project yet or will it become > > > available as it is merged into extras? > > > > We're just putting things that make sense into Extras. Help is > > appreciated. > > ... > > > > 1b) on a production system should I stick with CCRMA for now? > > > > Fedora Extras only provides a fraction of the total CCRMA repo, and it's > > unlikely it will ever contain everything in that repository (kernel > > packages, for instance). > > > > In places where there's overlap (where we've put something in Extras > > from CCRMA), I don't think there's any reason to prefer the CCRMA > > packages over Fedora Extras (unless you're running FC4 or lower). I > > think all of the Extras packages have higher version/release numbers > > than the CCRMA packages anyways, so yum should just sort this out for > > you. > > Are the packages in Extras built with the same support for LADSPA, JACK, > and such; i.e. is the functionality the same as the CCRMA packages? Should be. It may be that temporarily there could be newer versions of relevant packages in the Planet CCRMA repos. Or versions that depend on stuff that has not made it to Extras yet. > > > 1c) is the project currently targeting FC5 or is it targeting > > > compatibility with FC6 and future versions of Fedora Core? > > > > I think everything so far has gone into FE5 and development (FE6). Some > > packages were also placed in FE4. > > ... > > > > 2) As this project gets under way will there be a kernel available > > > featuring the real-time preemption patch by Ingo Molnar? This has made > > > a huge difference for me and is essential to making my system actually > > > usable for live recording. > > > > There are no plans to put kernels into Fedora Extras. We just don't > > have the infrastructure or policy to support this in Fedora Extras. I'm > > hopeful that Ingo's patches will get merged upstream some day. Of > > course, this may take years. Who knows. > > So far I've been using (FC5) " yum --exclude='*kernel*' update " > I've been running with strictly the CCRMA repos enabled, since I noticed > for one that the CCRMA repo looked like it had a modified version of > PAM. That is needed so that Planet CCRMA users have access to realtime scheduling and memory locking by default. Otherwise they would have to edit as root a configuration file. I try to avoid things like that like the plague for obvious reasons... the Planet CCRMA "audio workstation" should work out of the box as much as possible. > From: http://ccrma.stanford.edu/planetccrma/software/installtwosix.html > > "The core packages include the patched kernel itself and newer, > more up to date versions of the ALSA sound drivers (including > some tools and packages that are not part of the normal Fedora > Core install). It also brings in a patched version of PAM that > has access to realtime scheduling and memory locking for all > users." > > > Also, from: > http://ccrma.stanford.edu/planetccrma/software/installtwosix.html > > "The Planet CCRMA package collection is managed through the Yum > utilities. You will need to update yum to a newer version that > has support for installing older kernels (you need this to be > able to later install the core components of Planet CCRMA > (realtime kernel, etc, etc)." > /planetccrma/5/i386/yum-2.6.1-0.1.rhfc5.ccrma.noarch.rpm > > Is this now deprecated? Nope, still needed and even unsuccessful in some cases. That's regretfully there because yum will not let you install an older kernel (from the point of view of e-v-r numbering) than the latest one installed at all. No chance. Not even if you know what you are doing. IMHO broken, the dependency resolver should NOT define policy as to which packages I can install. > And finally, and again from: > http://ccrma.stanford.edu/planetccrma/software/installtwosix.html > > "If you have not already done it, you should update your machine > to the latest version of the Fedora Core packages. They will > provide important security and functionality upgrades. The > Planet CCRMA repository includes the Fedora Core updates, you > can install what is available..." > > Having had ONLY planetccrma, planetcore, planetextras, and planetupdates > repos enabled (and system up to date), I enabled Extras repo and the > only updates currently available for the software I use are lash, > ladspa, and python-mutagen. I notice however that Extras has many of > the same versions of packages that I have installed, less the 'ccrma' > tag in the filename. > > > If you're interested in helping move things to Extras, just shout out. > > > > AG > > I've no experience in building packages, but as long as the Extras > packages offer the same functionality as the CCRMA packages I'd be happy > to enable the Extras repo again and help test the apps that I actually > know well how to use, such as JACK & LADSPA tools, Ardour, Hydrogen, etc > etc... They should be equivalent. If not let us know. I have not done a thorough review but that is the case in what I know. -- Fernando From green at redhat.com Wed Oct 25 16:15:56 2006 From: green at redhat.com (Anthony Green) Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 09:15:56 -0700 Subject: [Fedora-music-list] firewire audio support In-Reply-To: <1158439603.3179.38.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <1157899345.2610.106.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1158439603.3179.38.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <1161792956.2900.37.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Sat, 2006-09-16 at 13:46 -0700, Anthony Green wrote: > On Sun, 2006-09-10 at 07:42 -0700, Anthony Green wrote: > > libfreebob was submitted to FE. It's a userland driver library for many > > firewire audio devices: > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=205929 > > Good news... jwilson updated libavc1394 in rawhide, so the right version > will appear in FC6. And thanks to nando for freebob-enabling qjackctl. > Now I just need somebody to review libfreebob and we'll have some decent > firewire audio support in FC6. Any takers? Firewire audio device support is ready now (for FC6 and beyond). We're just waiting for the packages to get pushed out to the Fedora Extras repositories. The only trick is that you have to manually load the ieee1394 and raw1394 kernel modules for it to work. Isn't there some way this can be done automatically when I select the FreeBob driver for jack? AG