From hellwolf.misty at gmail.com Sun Apr 6 20:10:55 2008 From: hellwolf.misty at gmail.com (ZC Miao) Date: Sun, 06 Apr 2008 21:10:55 +0100 Subject: [Fedora-music-list] ardour 2.4 was out Message-ID: <1207512655.13730.2.camel@sonyvgnnr21s.freehell.org> [quote] Ardour 2.4 released Submitted by paul on Mon, 2008-03-31 21:03. :: Articles Well, its over a month later than expected, but Ardour 2.4 is finally here. A respectable list of new features, many small improvements and an important set of bug fixes make up the news for this one. Read more below ... [/quote] So, when will we get it in F8? Thanks, regards, -- ZC Miao (hellwolf.misty at gmail.com) Blog http://hellwolf.cublog.cn gpg --keyserver pgp.mit.edu --recv-key 0x6B174C6F From j.w.r.degoede at hhs.nl Mon Apr 7 14:03:30 2008 From: j.w.r.degoede at hhs.nl (Hans de Goede) Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2008 16:03:30 +0200 Subject: [Fedora-music-list] ardour 2.4 was out In-Reply-To: <1207512655.13730.2.camel@sonyvgnnr21s.freehell.org> References: <1207512655.13730.2.camel@sonyvgnnr21s.freehell.org> Message-ID: <47FA29B2.2040007@hhs.nl> ZC Miao wrote: > [quote] > Ardour 2.4 released > Submitted by paul on Mon, 2008-03-31 21:03. :: Articles > Well, its over a month later than expected, but Ardour 2.4 is finally > here. A respectable list of new features, many small improvements and an > important set of bug fixes make up the news for this one. Read more > below ... > [/quote] > > So, when will we get it in F8? > In F-8, I dunno, it is on its way to rawhide / F-9 beta now. Considering that this not purely a bug fix release I'm not sure if we want to release this as an update to F-8. What do others on this list think? You could grab the srpm from rawhide and build it for F-8, and provide us with some feedback on it, that might help. Regards, Hans From ascensiontech at gmail.com Mon Apr 7 17:08:52 2008 From: ascensiontech at gmail.com (Peter Hartmann) Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2008 13:08:52 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-music-list] ardour 2.4 was out In-Reply-To: <1207512655.13730.2.camel@sonyvgnnr21s.freehell.org> References: <1207512655.13730.2.camel@sonyvgnnr21s.freehell.org> Message-ID: <9bd317560804071008m125477y69e71e2c91eb8eb8@mail.gmail.com> Building from source it is pretty easy on fedora.... scons PREFIX=/usr as root: scons install to uninstall: scons uninstall PREFIX=/usr Peter On Sun, Apr 6, 2008 at 4:10 PM, ZC Miao wrote: > [quote] > Ardour 2.4 released > Submitted by paul on Mon, 2008-03-31 21:03. :: Articles > Well, its over a month later than expected, but Ardour 2.4 is finally > here. A respectable list of new features, many small improvements and an > important set of bug fixes make up the news for this one. Read more > below ... > [/quote] > > So, when will we get it in F8? > > Thanks, regards, > > -- > ZC Miao (hellwolf.misty at gmail.com) > Blog http://hellwolf.cublog.cn > > gpg --keyserver pgp.mit.edu --recv-key 0x6B174C6F > > > _______________________________________________ > Fedora-music-list mailing list > Fedora-music-list at redhat.com > http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-music-list > From nando at ccrma.Stanford.EDU Tue Apr 8 18:24:28 2008 From: nando at ccrma.Stanford.EDU (Fernando Lopez-Lezcano) Date: Tue, 08 Apr 2008 11:24:28 -0700 Subject: [Fedora-music-list] ardour 2.4 was out In-Reply-To: <47FA29B2.2040007@hhs.nl> References: <1207512655.13730.2.camel@sonyvgnnr21s.freehell.org> <47FA29B2.2040007@hhs.nl> Message-ID: <1207679068.20347.28.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Mon, 2008-04-07 at 16:03 +0200, Hans de Goede wrote: > ZC Miao wrote: > > [quote] > > Ardour 2.4 released > > Submitted by paul on Mon, 2008-03-31 21:03. :: Articles > > Well, its over a month later than expected, but Ardour 2.4 is finally > > here. A respectable list of new features, many small improvements and an > > important set of bug fixes make up the news for this one. Read more > > below ... > > [/quote] > > > > So, when will we get it in F8? > > > > In F-8, I dunno, it is on its way to rawhide / F-9 beta now. Considering that > this not purely a bug fix release I'm not sure if we want to release this as an > update to F-8. What do others on this list think? I would release it on Fedora 8. It has bug fixes and I think other users would probably appreciate having the latest. > You could grab the srpm from rawhide and build it for F-8, and provide us with > some feedback on it, that might help. I'll probably try a release in the Planet CCRMA testing repos... -- Fernando From nicholasmanojlovic at gmail.com Tue Apr 8 22:02:52 2008 From: nicholasmanojlovic at gmail.com (Nicholas Manojlovic) Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2008 08:02:52 +1000 Subject: [Fedora-music-list] ardour 2.4 was out In-Reply-To: <1207679068.20347.28.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <1207512655.13730.2.camel@sonyvgnnr21s.freehell.org> <47FA29B2.2040007@hhs.nl> <1207679068.20347.28.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <3b8f8cb80804081502q66f5e45akb400a90d279f3c09@mail.gmail.com> I think I preferred it when Ardour was in the CCRMA repo. Not only was it quicker, I trust its been built with music in mind. On Wed, Apr 9, 2008 at 4:24 AM, Fernando Lopez-Lezcano < nando at ccrma.stanford.edu> wrote: > On Mon, 2008-04-07 at 16:03 +0200, Hans de Goede wrote: > > ZC Miao wrote: > > > [quote] > > > Ardour 2.4 released > > > Submitted by paul on Mon, 2008-03-31 21:03. :: Articles > > > Well, its over a month later than expected, but Ardour 2.4 is finally > > > here. A respectable list of new features, many small improvements and > an > > > important set of bug fixes make up the news for this one. Read more > > > below ... > > > [/quote] > > > > > > So, when will we get it in F8? > > > > > > > In F-8, I dunno, it is on its way to rawhide / F-9 beta now. Considering > that > > this not purely a bug fix release I'm not sure if we want to release > this as an > > update to F-8. What do others on this list think? > > I would release it on Fedora 8. It has bug fixes and I think other users > would probably appreciate having the latest. > > > You could grab the srpm from rawhide and build it for F-8, and provide > us with > > some feedback on it, that might help. > > I'll probably try a release in the Planet CCRMA testing repos... > -- Fernando > > > _______________________________________________ > Fedora-music-list mailing list > Fedora-music-list at redhat.com > http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-music-list > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From green at redhat.com Tue Apr 8 19:13:02 2008 From: green at redhat.com (Anthony Green) Date: Tue, 08 Apr 2008 15:13:02 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-music-list] ardour 2.4 was out In-Reply-To: <3b8f8cb80804081502q66f5e45akb400a90d279f3c09@mail.gmail.com> References: <1207512655.13730.2.camel@sonyvgnnr21s.freehell.org> <47FA29B2.2040007@hhs.nl> <1207679068.20347.28.camel@localhost.localdomain> <3b8f8cb80804081502q66f5e45akb400a90d279f3c09@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <47FBC3BE.7050601@redhat.com> Nicholas Manojlovic wrote: > I think I preferred it when Ardour was in the CCRMA repo. Not only was > it quicker, I trust its been built with music in mind. > What do you mean by "built with music in mind"? What else would we build it for? AG From nicholasmanojlovic at gmail.com Tue Apr 8 22:17:54 2008 From: nicholasmanojlovic at gmail.com (Nicholas Manojlovic) Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2008 08:17:54 +1000 Subject: [Fedora-music-list] ardour 2.4 was out In-Reply-To: <47FBC3BE.7050601@redhat.com> References: <1207512655.13730.2.camel@sonyvgnnr21s.freehell.org> <47FA29B2.2040007@hhs.nl> <1207679068.20347.28.camel@localhost.localdomain> <3b8f8cb80804081502q66f5e45akb400a90d279f3c09@mail.gmail.com> <47FBC3BE.7050601@redhat.com> Message-ID: <3b8f8cb80804081517s7e5caf8dwf4d2b44fdeaf4d77@mail.gmail.com> Packaging conventions and rules, I guess. I like the idea of the Fedora music sig a lot, but it seems to be in a half-half state. I realise I'm being ridiculously critical here, because I haven't contributed. But it feels like it took the best things from CCRMA and made them more 'generic' and not as specialised. I may be wrong. On Wed, Apr 9, 2008 at 5:13 AM, Anthony Green wrote: > Nicholas Manojlovic wrote: > > > I think I preferred it when Ardour was in the CCRMA repo. Not only was > > it quicker, I trust its been built with music in mind. > > > > > What do you mean by "built with music in mind"? What else would we build > it for? > > AG > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gdk at redhat.com Tue Apr 8 22:21:32 2008 From: gdk at redhat.com (Greg DeKoenigsberg) Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2008 18:21:32 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [Fedora-music-list] ardour 2.4 was out In-Reply-To: <3b8f8cb80804081517s7e5caf8dwf4d2b44fdeaf4d77@mail.gmail.com> References: <1207512655.13730.2.camel@sonyvgnnr21s.freehell.org> <47FA29B2.2040007@hhs.nl> <1207679068.20347.28.camel@localhost.localdomain> <3b8f8cb80804081502q66f5e45akb400a90d279f3c09@mail.gmail.com> <47FBC3BE.7050601@redhat.com> <3b8f8cb80804081517s7e5caf8dwf4d2b44fdeaf4d77@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Wed, 9 Apr 2008, Nicholas Manojlovic wrote: > Packaging conventions and rules, I guess. > > I like the idea of the Fedora music sig a lot, but it seems to be in a > half-half state. I realise I'm being ridiculously critical here, because I > haven't contributed. But it feels like it took the best things from CCRMA > and made them more 'generic' and not as specialised. I may be wrong. Maybe this is a fair point. Really, I first envisioned this as a way to help bring CCRMA and Fedora together. Because the fact is, most of the CCRMA stuff should live in Fedora anyway. But the fact that CCRMA requires the RT kernel and other non-standard stuff may make that difficult. The real question, to me, is what about CCRMA makes it impossible to roll the CCRMA bits directly into Fedora proper? And what can we do to fix those things? This is the kind of thing we could/should be discussing on this list. --g -- Greg DeKoenigsberg Community Development Manager Red Hat, Inc. :: 1-919-754-4255 "To whomsoever much hath been given... ...from him much shall be asked" From nando at ccrma.Stanford.EDU Wed Apr 9 10:29:51 2008 From: nando at ccrma.Stanford.EDU (Fernando Lopez-Lezcano) Date: Wed, 09 Apr 2008 03:29:51 -0700 Subject: [Fedora-music-list] ardour 2.4 was out In-Reply-To: <3b8f8cb80804081502q66f5e45akb400a90d279f3c09@mail.gmail.com> References: <1207512655.13730.2.camel@sonyvgnnr21s.freehell.org> <47FA29B2.2040007@hhs.nl> <1207679068.20347.28.camel@localhost.localdomain> <3b8f8cb80804081502q66f5e45akb400a90d279f3c09@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <1207736991.9397.16.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Wed, 2008-04-09 at 08:02 +1000, Nicholas Manojlovic wrote: > I think I preferred it when Ardour was in the CCRMA repo. Not only was > it quicker, I trust its been built with music in mind. I don't think there is any difference re: packaging between the Fedora and Planet CCRMA repositories (if anything Fedora packages should be better quality because of peer review, etc, etc). But that should not translate normally into any audible or musical differences. The slower turn around is a direct consequence of how Fedora works and is, I believe, unavoidable. -- Fernando > On Wed, Apr 9, 2008 at 4:24 AM, Fernando Lopez-Lezcano > wrote: > On Mon, 2008-04-07 at 16:03 +0200, Hans de Goede wrote: > > ZC Miao wrote: > > > [quote] > > > Ardour 2.4 released > > > Submitted by paul on Mon, 2008-03-31 21:03. :: Articles > > > Well, its over a month later than expected, but Ardour 2.4 > is finally > > > here. A respectable list of new features, many small > improvements and an > > > important set of bug fixes make up the news for this one. > Read more > > > below ... > > > [/quote] > > > > > > So, when will we get it in F8? > > > > > > > In F-8, I dunno, it is on its way to rawhide / F-9 beta now. > Considering that > > this not purely a bug fix release I'm not sure if we want to > release this as an > > update to F-8. What do others on this list think? > > > I would release it on Fedora 8. It has bug fixes and I think > other users > would probably appreciate having the latest. > > > You could grab the srpm from rawhide and build it for F-8, > and provide us with > > some feedback on it, that might help. > > > I'll probably try a release in the Planet CCRMA testing > repos... > From nando at ccrma.Stanford.EDU Wed Apr 9 10:50:33 2008 From: nando at ccrma.Stanford.EDU (Fernando Lopez-Lezcano) Date: Wed, 09 Apr 2008 03:50:33 -0700 Subject: [Fedora-music-list] ardour 2.4 was out In-Reply-To: References: <1207512655.13730.2.camel@sonyvgnnr21s.freehell.org> <47FA29B2.2040007@hhs.nl> <1207679068.20347.28.camel@localhost.localdomain> <3b8f8cb80804081502q66f5e45akb400a90d279f3c09@mail.gmail.com> <47FBC3BE.7050601@redhat.com> <3b8f8cb80804081517s7e5caf8dwf4d2b44fdeaf4d77@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <1207738233.9397.40.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Tue, 2008-04-08 at 18:21 -0400, Greg DeKoenigsberg wrote: > On Wed, 9 Apr 2008, Nicholas Manojlovic wrote: > > > Packaging conventions and rules, I guess. > > > > I like the idea of the Fedora music sig a lot, but it seems to be in a > > half-half state. I realise I'm being ridiculously critical here, because I > > haven't contributed. But it feels like it took the best things from CCRMA > > and made them more 'generic' and not as specialised. I may be wrong. > > Maybe this is a fair point. > > Really, I first envisioned this as a way to help bring CCRMA and Fedora > together. Because the fact is, most of the CCRMA stuff should live in > Fedora anyway. But the fact that CCRMA requires the RT kernel and other > non-standard stuff may make that difficult. I don't think it is the kernel itself. After all I think all apps will work fine on a stock Fedora kernel. They will not be able to run reliably at low latencies but they will run. The "problem" (if there is any) is a combination of many other factors. > The real question, to me, is what about CCRMA makes it impossible to roll > the CCRMA bits directly into Fedora proper? And what can we do to fix > those things? I can only bring my own point of view here. I don't think there is anything of a technical nature that prevents any packages from moving (ignoring any non-free dependency stuff, of course). Probably what is needed is more packagers that also use the stuff in day to day music-making (BTW, I'm not complaining about current packagers), and are commited to maintaining packages in the long term. And keeping on top of new versions as they are released. That is what makes Planet CCRMA tick. But packaging is notoriously unsexy stuff to do. I know. I currently don't see an advantage in maintaining packages _myself_ in the Fedora environment as opposed to the Planet CCRMA system. It takes far longer to do anything, or at least that is my perception. Maybe it is because of lack of knowledge - I have not even caught up to the move from plague to koji! (pretty pathetic, I know), but I don't have (m)any cycles to burn on what I perceive to be non-essential stuff. In the time it takes to discuss if we should release ardour 2.4 on f8 (I don't think we ever saw 2.3.1, right?) to the masses I released a testing version for fc6/7/8 in the Planet CCRMA repositories[*]. And I used to be a lot more on top of releases (ie: Planet CCRMA moves quite slowly these days :-). And to the point. Why not release ardour 2.4 on f8? Is it because it has new features and those should be reserved to f9? Why? Users probably want to use them _now_ and not wait till f9 comes out, at least the kind of users I have (used to have?) on Planet CCRMA. Or is it because it may be unstable? As if all the software in Fedora is stable, right? :-p Do we want Fedora/Music to be rock stable? Or do we want a fast moving music environment that keeps up to the latest and greatest? The later would seem more "in tune" with Fedora itself and is what I used to do on Planet CCRMA... And to do it, how do we keep track of the latest and greatest and release it fast? -- Fernando [*] nothing is for free of course. I tested ardour 2.4 on f8 briefly so for all I know it may be broken everywhere else. Borrowed spec/etc from the koji builder to stay synched with Fedora's... From gdk at redhat.com Wed Apr 9 14:34:14 2008 From: gdk at redhat.com (Greg DeKoenigsberg) Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2008 10:34:14 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [Fedora-music-list] ardour 2.4 was out In-Reply-To: <1207738233.9397.40.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <1207512655.13730.2.camel@sonyvgnnr21s.freehell.org> <47FA29B2.2040007@hhs.nl> <1207679068.20347.28.camel@localhost.localdomain> <3b8f8cb80804081502q66f5e45akb400a90d279f3c09@mail.gmail.com> <47FBC3BE.7050601@redhat.com> <3b8f8cb80804081517s7e5caf8dwf4d2b44fdeaf4d77@mail.gmail.com> <1207738233.9397.40.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: On Wed, 9 Apr 2008, Fernando Lopez-Lezcano wrote: >>> Packaging conventions and rules, I guess. >>> >>> I like the idea of the Fedora music sig a lot, but it seems to be in a >>> half-half state. I realise I'm being ridiculously critical here, because I >>> haven't contributed. But it feels like it took the best things from CCRMA >>> and made them more 'generic' and not as specialised. I may be wrong. >> >> Maybe this is a fair point. >> >> Really, I first envisioned this as a way to help bring CCRMA and Fedora >> together. Because the fact is, most of the CCRMA stuff should live in >> Fedora anyway. But the fact that CCRMA requires the RT kernel and other >> non-standard stuff may make that difficult. > > I don't think it is the kernel itself. After all I think all apps will > work fine on a stock Fedora kernel. They will not be able to run > reliably at low latencies but they will run. The "problem" (if there is > any) is a combination of many other factors. > >> The real question, to me, is what about CCRMA makes it impossible to roll >> the CCRMA bits directly into Fedora proper? And what can we do to fix >> those things? > > I can only bring my own point of view here. > > I don't think there is anything of a technical nature that prevents any > packages from moving (ignoring any non-free dependency stuff, of > course). > > Probably what is needed is more packagers that also use the stuff in day > to day music-making (BTW, I'm not complaining about current packagers), > and are commited to maintaining packages in the long term. And keeping > on top of new versions as they are released. That is what makes Planet > CCRMA tick. But packaging is notoriously unsexy stuff to do. I know. Yep. And yet, we've got hundreds of volunteers doing exactly that in the Fedora world. There are many open questions about the quality of these packages, though. > I currently don't see an advantage in maintaining packages _myself_ in > the Fedora environment as opposed to the Planet CCRMA system. It takes > far longer to do anything, or at least that is my perception. Maybe it > is because of lack of knowledge - I have not even caught up to the move > from plague to koji! (pretty pathetic, I know), but I don't have (m)any > cycles to burn on what I perceive to be non-essential stuff. This is a fair point. And there's no advantage at all if the new system simply forces you to adopt a new system, when the old system worked perfectly well for you. No, the only way there's benefit is if you get hands to help you maintain packages. > In the time it takes to discuss if we should release ardour 2.4 on f8 (I > don't think we ever saw 2.3.1, right?) to the masses I released a > testing version for fc6/7/8 in the Planet CCRMA repositories[*]. And I > used to be a lot more on top of releases (ie: Planet CCRMA moves quite > slowly these days :-). > > And to the point. Why not release ardour 2.4 on f8? Is it because it has > new features and those should be reserved to f9? Why? Users probably > want to use them _now_ and not wait till f9 comes out, at least the kind > of users I have (used to have?) on Planet CCRMA. Or is it because it may > be unstable? As if all the software in Fedora is stable, right? :-p Heh. So again, there are tradeoffs that come with using Fedora itself. One of those tradeoffs is accepting, or arguing about, a bunch of policies. The alleged benefit for you, Nando, would be to cut your workload by a significant amount. But that clearly isn't happening. > Do we want Fedora/Music to be rock stable? Or do we want a fast moving > music environment that keeps up to the latest and greatest? The later > would seem more "in tune" with Fedora itself and is what I used to do on > Planet CCRMA... > > And to do it, how do we keep track of the latest and greatest and > release it fast? Good questions. It may well be that CCRMA should continue to be fully independent, but have a much stronger base of Fedora packages to draw from, and Nando, when you see fit, you can supersede a Fedora package with a newer package in CCRMA. That would be a pretty good outcome, too. Basically: you're doing awesome work, maybe the best work in the Linux music space, and we at Fedora need to continue to find incremental ways to lighten your load without getting in your way. How many CCRMA packages currently have Fedora analogues at this point, anyway? --g -- Greg DeKoenigsberg Community Development Manager Red Hat, Inc. :: 1-919-754-4255 "To whomsoever much hath been given... ...from him much shall be asked" From nando at ccrma.Stanford.EDU Wed Apr 9 15:00:43 2008 From: nando at ccrma.Stanford.EDU (Fernando Lopez-Lezcano) Date: Wed, 09 Apr 2008 08:00:43 -0700 Subject: [Fedora-music-list] ardour 2.4 was out In-Reply-To: References: <1207512655.13730.2.camel@sonyvgnnr21s.freehell.org> <47FA29B2.2040007@hhs.nl> <1207679068.20347.28.camel@localhost.localdomain> <3b8f8cb80804081502q66f5e45akb400a90d279f3c09@mail.gmail.com> <47FBC3BE.7050601@redhat.com> <3b8f8cb80804081517s7e5caf8dwf4d2b44fdeaf4d77@mail.gmail.com> <1207738233.9397.40.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <1207753243.23450.23.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Wed, 2008-04-09 at 10:34 -0400, Greg DeKoenigsberg wrote: > On Wed, 9 Apr 2008, Fernando Lopez-Lezcano wrote: > >> Really, I first envisioned this as a way to help bring CCRMA and Fedora > >> together. Because the fact is, most of the CCRMA stuff should live in > >> Fedora anyway. But the fact that CCRMA requires the RT kernel and other > >> non-standard stuff may make that difficult. > > > > I don't think it is the kernel itself. After all I think all apps will > > work fine on a stock Fedora kernel. They will not be able to run > > reliably at low latencies but they will run. The "problem" (if there is > > any) is a combination of many other factors. > > > >> The real question, to me, is what about CCRMA makes it impossible to roll > >> the CCRMA bits directly into Fedora proper? And what can we do to fix > >> those things? > > > > I can only bring my own point of view here. > > > > I don't think there is anything of a technical nature that prevents any > > packages from moving (ignoring any non-free dependency stuff, of > > course). > > > > Probably what is needed is more packagers that also use the stuff in day > > to day music-making (BTW, I'm not complaining about current packagers), > > and are commited to maintaining packages in the long term. And keeping > > on top of new versions as they are released. That is what makes Planet > > CCRMA tick. But packaging is notoriously unsexy stuff to do. I know. > > Yep. And yet, we've got hundreds of volunteers doing exactly that in the > Fedora world. That is good.... > There are many open questions about the quality of these > packages, though. At least the ones that I have looked at seem to be pretty good - but I have not looked at really complicated stuff[*]. Of the ones the migrated from Planet CCRMA I dare say they got better (less hacks I guess :-). > > In the time it takes to discuss if we should release ardour 2.4 on f8 (I > > don't think we ever saw 2.3.1, right?) to the masses I released a > > testing version for fc6/7/8 in the Planet CCRMA repositories[*]. And I > > used to be a lot more on top of releases (ie: Planet CCRMA moves quite > > slowly these days :-). > > > > And to the point. Why not release ardour 2.4 on f8? Is it because it has > > new features and those should be reserved to f9? Why? Users probably > > want to use them _now_ and not wait till f9 comes out, at least the kind > > of users I have (used to have?) on Planet CCRMA. Or is it because it may > > be unstable? As if all the software in Fedora is stable, right? :-p > > Heh. > > So again, there are tradeoffs that come with using Fedora itself. One of > those tradeoffs is accepting, or arguing about, a bunch of policies. I agree, comes with the territory. I hope I didn't sound too whiny. > The alleged benefit for you, Nando, would be to cut your workload by a > significant amount. But that clearly isn't happening. Well, it _has_ happened, just not to the degree, or as fast as we expected it to happen. Part of it may be that there are more options now in terms of distributions and users have migrated over the years to other distros, and some of those may be audio apps packagers as well. > > Do we want Fedora/Music to be rock stable? Or do we want a fast moving > > music environment that keeps up to the latest and greatest? The later > > would seem more "in tune" with Fedora itself and is what I used to do on > > Planet CCRMA... > > > > And to do it, how do we keep track of the latest and greatest and > > release it fast? > > Good questions. Any answers from the rest of the audience?? Or comments? :-) > It may well be that CCRMA should continue to be fully independent, but > have a much stronger base of Fedora packages to draw from, That has already happened I think, there's a lot of stuff that I used to package in the, say, Fedora 1 or RedHat 9 days that now comes directly from Fedora. You know, general purpose support packages that other packages need to be able to build. Or even music related stuff like Csound. > and Nando, when > you see fit, you can supersede a Fedora package with a newer package in > CCRMA. That would be a pretty good outcome, too. > > Basically: you're doing awesome work, maybe the best work in the Linux > music space, and we at Fedora need to continue to find incremental ways to > lighten your load without getting in your way. > > How many CCRMA packages currently have Fedora analogues at this point, > anyway? Hmmm, I don't really know, I should run a script to see exactly what is the status these days. But the packages that have migrated to Fedora proper I try not to replicate in my repos (Ardour is an exception right now). I forgot to add that we have extended Planet CCRMA to embrace CentOS (ahem!) as well. Arnaud Gomes-do-Vale at IRCAM had been supporting that option for a while (a fantastic job) and I finally came through and installed plague and friends in our build server so that a build system and shared svn repo for specs and all that is in place. So there's a lot more help than before (for example the packaging for LV2 that I just released was done by Arnaud). -- Fernando [*] if you want to get a headache take a look at what I had to do to get pd-extended built into subpackages for all the external collections.... From davej at redhat.com Wed Apr 9 15:07:56 2008 From: davej at redhat.com (Dave Jones) Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2008 11:07:56 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-music-list] ardour 2.4 was out In-Reply-To: References: <1207512655.13730.2.camel@sonyvgnnr21s.freehell.org> <47FA29B2.2040007@hhs.nl> <1207679068.20347.28.camel@localhost.localdomain> <3b8f8cb80804081502q66f5e45akb400a90d279f3c09@mail.gmail.com> <47FBC3BE.7050601@redhat.com> <3b8f8cb80804081517s7e5caf8dwf4d2b44fdeaf4d77@mail.gmail.com> <1207738233.9397.40.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <20080409150756.GA5301@redhat.com> On Wed, Apr 09, 2008 at 10:34:14AM -0400, Greg DeKoenigsberg wrote: > >> Really, I first envisioned this as a way to help bring CCRMA and Fedora > >> together. Because the fact is, most of the CCRMA stuff should live in > >> Fedora anyway. But the fact that CCRMA requires the RT kernel and other > >> non-standard stuff may make that difficult. > > > > I don't think it is the kernel itself. After all I think all apps will > > work fine on a stock Fedora kernel. They will not be able to run > > reliably at low latencies but they will run. The "problem" (if there is > > any) is a combination of many other factors. The -rt changes continue to trickle upstream. hopefully eventually this problem will become moot. > > Probably what is needed is more packagers that also use the stuff in day > > to day music-making (BTW, I'm not complaining about current packagers), > > and are commited to maintaining packages in the long term. And keeping > > on top of new versions as they are released. That is what makes Planet > > CCRMA tick. But packaging is notoriously unsexy stuff to do. I know. > > Yep. And yet, we've got hundreds of volunteers doing exactly that in the > Fedora world. There are many open questions about the quality of these > packages, though. Would it help any if somone else stepped up and started maintaining analogs of ccrma packages in 'core' ? I'd probably be interested in finding time to maintain a few of them myself if this made peoples lives easier. I've held off from proposing package reviews of several apps (not just music apps) because someone is maintaining rpms in another repo > It may well be that CCRMA should continue to be fully independent, but > have a much stronger base of Fedora packages to draw from, and Nando, when > you see fit, you can supersede a Fedora package with a newer package in > CCRMA. That would be a pretty good outcome, too. I'm beginning to wonder if 3rd party repos are doing us more harm than good in the long run. The reason I bring this up is because after several discussions with people yesterday here at the Linux Foundation collaboration summit, I heard things like.. "I prefer ubuntu/debian because it has more packages." "true, but what packages are you missing from Fedora?" "xyz" "Oh, we have that packaged but it's in repo z" A lot of users won't go hunting for extra repositories. If it isn't in the repos that Fedora comes bundled with, to them, it doesn't exist in Fedora. And for those that are aware of 3rd party repos, there seems to be a reluctance to adding them to avoid the infamous "rpm hell" with conflicting deps between repos. I'm sure this small sample of users isn't representative, but it's definitly holding some users back. Personally, I know I've given up after finding something isn't packaged in Fedora on many occasions, and it pains me to say it, but it's sometimes been quicker/easier to go download a binary of the same opensource app for my mac than it is to get the same thing running under Fedora. Anyway, hyperbole over. How can we improve the situation? > Basically: you're doing awesome work, maybe the best work in the Linux > music space, and we at Fedora need to continue to find incremental ways to > lighten your load without getting in your way. > How many CCRMA packages currently have Fedora analogues at this point, > anyway? The apps shouldn't pose too much of a problem to get merged, but I'm wondering how things like jack fit into the new world order of pulseaudio. I guess Nando already has to deal with this somehow, so maybe it's already a solved problem, but things like this and the kernel are the only technical hurdles afaics? In my utopian world, I'd love to see ccrma just become a spin of the main fedora. Allowing people who want a more multi-purpose install to also install those same packages without the hassle of additional repos. Dave -- http://www.codemonkey.org.uk From gdk at redhat.com Wed Apr 9 15:23:12 2008 From: gdk at redhat.com (Greg DeKoenigsberg) Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2008 11:23:12 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [Fedora-music-list] ardour 2.4 was out In-Reply-To: <1207753243.23450.23.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <1207512655.13730.2.camel@sonyvgnnr21s.freehell.org> <47FA29B2.2040007@hhs.nl> <1207679068.20347.28.camel@localhost.localdomain> <3b8f8cb80804081502q66f5e45akb400a90d279f3c09@mail.gmail.com> <47FBC3BE.7050601@redhat.com> <3b8f8cb80804081517s7e5caf8dwf4d2b44fdeaf4d77@mail.gmail.com> <1207738233.9397.40.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1207753243.23450.23.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: On Wed, 9 Apr 2008, Fernando Lopez-Lezcano wrote: >> Yep. And yet, we've got hundreds of volunteers doing exactly that in the >> Fedora world. > > That is good.... > >> There are many open questions about the quality of these >> packages, though. > > At least the ones that I have looked at seem to be pretty good - but I > have not looked at really complicated stuff[*]. Of the ones the migrated > from Planet CCRMA I dare say they got better (less hacks I guess :-). Heh. Well, that's the benefit of all those heinous guidelines. :) >> The alleged benefit for you, Nando, would be to cut your workload by a >> significant amount. But that clearly isn't happening. > > Well, it _has_ happened, just not to the degree, or as fast as we > expected it to happen. Part of it may be that there are more options now > in terms of distributions and users have migrated over the years to > other distros, and some of those may be audio apps packagers as well. Right. So this is a conversation that I'm having, in some form or another, all across the Fedora universe. Step 1, for me, was to make sure that Fedora functioned as an actual *community*. Mission accomplished, more or less. So step 2 is basically marketing, and showing everybody how awesome Fedora and Fedora-related projects can be. The absence of CCRMA from that survey that got passed around the ccrma-list a coupld of months back really stuck in my craw, I must say. But that's our fault, to some degree. So maybe the question is, how do we promote CCRMA? I think one way we promote it by noting who does the work. "Maintained by professors at Stanford" has got to be a pretty big selling point. I know that a lot of people don't have much stomach for this kind of work, but it's important, especially in community projects, to generate excitement around excellent work. Nobody puts Nando in a corner. :) >> It may well be that CCRMA should continue to be fully independent, but >> have a much stronger base of Fedora packages to draw from, > > That has already happened I think, there's a lot of stuff that I used to > package in the, say, Fedora 1 or RedHat 9 days that now comes directly > from Fedora. You know, general purpose support packages that other > packages need to be able to build. Or even music related stuff like > Csound. We can thank OLPC for that. > I forgot to add that we have extended Planet CCRMA to embrace CentOS > (ahem!) as well. Arnaud Gomes-do-Vale at IRCAM had been supporting that > option for a while (a fantastic job) and I finally came through and > installed plague and friends in our build server so that a build system > and shared svn repo for specs and all that is in place. So there's a lot > more help than before (for example the packaging for LV2 that I just > released was done by Arnaud). Honestly, I think that this is a big advantage for Fedora. The CentOS/Fedora partnership is becoming quite strong indeed, since the goals are so similar. No worries on this end. :) --g -- Greg DeKoenigsberg Community Development Manager Red Hat, Inc. :: 1-919-754-4255 "To whomsoever much hath been given... ...from him much shall be asked" From hcengar at gmail.com Wed Apr 9 15:30:25 2008 From: hcengar at gmail.com (Hector Centeno) Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2008 11:30:25 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-music-list] ardour 2.4 was out In-Reply-To: <20080409150756.GA5301@redhat.com> References: <1207512655.13730.2.camel@sonyvgnnr21s.freehell.org> <47FA29B2.2040007@hhs.nl> <1207679068.20347.28.camel@localhost.localdomain> <3b8f8cb80804081502q66f5e45akb400a90d279f3c09@mail.gmail.com> <47FBC3BE.7050601@redhat.com> <3b8f8cb80804081517s7e5caf8dwf4d2b44fdeaf4d77@mail.gmail.com> <1207738233.9397.40.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20080409150756.GA5301@redhat.com> Message-ID: <695e1a650804090830rd7b00deief0dcaf3b1222b11@mail.gmail.com> Hi, I just would like to share my point of view as a CCRMA user. One of the main reasons I moved from Debian based distros to Fedora-CCRMA was because of the fast availability of the latest versions of audio and music software. I think that in this field (audio/music) to have the "latest and greatest" is of great benefit since many of this apps are under heavy development and there are many improvements from one version to the other. When I used Debian based distros I had to constantly build my own applications so Fedora-CCRMA represented a big time saver (so I could be more of a composer using Linux than a hacker trying to use Linux). When I found about CCRMA moving to the main Fedora repos I thought it was a great idea since it would make things easier to Fernando. But now I find myself having to do the same app building I was doing in Debian and realizing that at the end it seems that all the "official" distro repositories, in their efforts of being "stable" (I agree with Fernando: how stable really Fedora is) become a big barrier for quick change and development. I don't see having external repos as an inconvenient thing and in the case of CCRMA (which I've been using on and off since Fedora 2) I never had any dependency "hell" as with other external repos since Fernando seems to always keep his packages totally compatible with the main Fedora repos and even with some important external ones like Livna. I support the idea of having newer versions of pakages in the CCRMA repos that supersede the ones in the Fedora repos and also agree that Fernando should get as many volunteers as possible to help him with the packaging (myself I've been trying to make time for it since I would like to take care of Csound and knowing that I wouldn't have to deal with the lengthy official Fedora processes makes it more appealing). This way then there are two options: for the user comfortable with slow and "stable" releases there is main Fedora, for the user needing bleeding edge there is CCRMA. Just my two cents. Hector On Wed, Apr 9, 2008 at 11:07 AM, Dave Jones wrote: > On Wed, Apr 09, 2008 at 10:34:14AM -0400, Greg DeKoenigsberg wrote: > > > >> Really, I first envisioned this as a way to help bring CCRMA and Fedora > > >> together. Because the fact is, most of the CCRMA stuff should live in > > >> Fedora anyway. But the fact that CCRMA requires the RT kernel and other > > >> non-standard stuff may make that difficult. > > > > > > I don't think it is the kernel itself. After all I think all apps will > > > work fine on a stock Fedora kernel. They will not be able to run > > > reliably at low latencies but they will run. The "problem" (if there is > > > any) is a combination of many other factors. > > The -rt changes continue to trickle upstream. hopefully eventually this > problem will become moot. > > > > > Probably what is needed is more packagers that also use the stuff in day > > > to day music-making (BTW, I'm not complaining about current packagers), > > > and are commited to maintaining packages in the long term. And keeping > > > on top of new versions as they are released. That is what makes Planet > > > CCRMA tick. But packaging is notoriously unsexy stuff to do. I know. > > > > Yep. And yet, we've got hundreds of volunteers doing exactly that in the > > Fedora world. There are many open questions about the quality of these > > packages, though. > > Would it help any if somone else stepped up and started maintaining analogs > of ccrma packages in 'core' ? I'd probably be interested in finding time > to maintain a few of them myself if this made peoples lives easier. > I've held off from proposing package reviews of several apps (not just > music apps) because someone is maintaining rpms in another repo > > > > It may well be that CCRMA should continue to be fully independent, but > > have a much stronger base of Fedora packages to draw from, and Nando, when > > you see fit, you can supersede a Fedora package with a newer package in > > CCRMA. That would be a pretty good outcome, too. > > I'm beginning to wonder if 3rd party repos are doing us more harm > than good in the long run. > The reason I bring this up is because after several discussions with > people yesterday here at the Linux Foundation collaboration summit, > I heard things like.. > > "I prefer ubuntu/debian because it has more packages." > "true, but what packages are you missing from Fedora?" > "xyz" > "Oh, we have that packaged but it's in repo z" > > A lot of users won't go hunting for extra repositories. > If it isn't in the repos that Fedora comes bundled with, to them, it doesn't exist > in Fedora. > > And for those that are aware of 3rd party repos, there seems to be a reluctance > to adding them to avoid the infamous "rpm hell" with conflicting deps > between repos. > > I'm sure this small sample of users isn't representative, but it's > definitly holding some users back. Personally, I know I've given up > after finding something isn't packaged in Fedora on many occasions, > and it pains me to say it, but it's sometimes been quicker/easier > to go download a binary of the same opensource app for my mac than it > is to get the same thing running under Fedora. > > Anyway, hyperbole over. How can we improve the situation? > > > > Basically: you're doing awesome work, maybe the best work in the Linux > > music space, and we at Fedora need to continue to find incremental ways to > > lighten your load without getting in your way. > > How many CCRMA packages currently have Fedora analogues at this point, > > anyway? > > The apps shouldn't pose too much of a problem to get merged, but I'm wondering > how things like jack fit into the new world order of pulseaudio. > I guess Nando already has to deal with this somehow, so maybe it's > already a solved problem, but things like this and the kernel are the > only technical hurdles afaics? > > In my utopian world, I'd love to see ccrma just become a spin of > the main fedora. Allowing people who want a more multi-purpose > install to also install those same packages without the hassle > of additional repos. > > Dave > > -- > http://www.codemonkey.org.uk > > > > _______________________________________________ > Fedora-music-list mailing list > Fedora-music-list at redhat.com > http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-music-list > From gdk at redhat.com Wed Apr 9 15:34:44 2008 From: gdk at redhat.com (Greg DeKoenigsberg) Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2008 11:34:44 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [Fedora-music-list] ardour 2.4 was out In-Reply-To: <20080409150756.GA5301@redhat.com> References: <1207512655.13730.2.camel@sonyvgnnr21s.freehell.org> <47FA29B2.2040007@hhs.nl> <1207679068.20347.28.camel@localhost.localdomain> <3b8f8cb80804081502q66f5e45akb400a90d279f3c09@mail.gmail.com> <47FBC3BE.7050601@redhat.com> <3b8f8cb80804081517s7e5caf8dwf4d2b44fdeaf4d77@mail.gmail.com> <1207738233.9397.40.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20080409150756.GA5301@redhat.com> Message-ID: On Wed, 9 Apr 2008, Dave Jones wrote: > Would it help any if somone else stepped up and started maintaining analogs > of ccrma packages in 'core' ? I'd probably be interested in finding time > to maintain a few of them myself if this made peoples lives easier. > I've held off from proposing package reviews of several apps (not just > music apps) because someone is maintaining rpms in another repo I'm sure it would. > > It may well be that CCRMA should continue to be fully independent, but > > have a much stronger base of Fedora packages to draw from, and Nando, when > > you see fit, you can supersede a Fedora package with a newer package in > > CCRMA. That would be a pretty good outcome, too. > > I'm beginning to wonder if 3rd party repos are doing us more harm than > good in the long run. The reason I bring this up is because after > several discussions with people yesterday here at the Linux Foundation > collaboration summit, I heard things like.. > > "I prefer ubuntu/debian because it has more packages." > "true, but what packages are you missing from Fedora?" > "xyz" > "Oh, we have that packaged but it's in repo z" > > A lot of users won't go hunting for extra repositories. If it isn't in > the repos that Fedora comes bundled with, to them, it doesn't exist in > Fedora. We just need to assess the reasons for these separations. Most of these issues have to do with The Repo That Must Not Be Named, and that's a difficult problem to solve. > And for those that are aware of 3rd party repos, there seems to be a > reluctance to adding them to avoid the infamous "rpm hell" with > conflicting deps between repos. Yeah. That is a problem, yes. > I'm sure this small sample of users isn't representative, but it's > definitly holding some users back. Personally, I know I've given up > after finding something isn't packaged in Fedora on many occasions, and > it pains me to say it, but it's sometimes been quicker/easier to go > download a binary of the same opensource app for my mac than it is to > get the same thing running under Fedora. SPLITTER! > The apps shouldn't pose too much of a problem to get merged, but I'm > wondering how things like jack fit into the new world order of > pulseaudio. I guess Nando already has to deal with this somehow, so > maybe it's already a solved problem, but things like this and the kernel > are the only technical hurdles afaics? > > In my utopian world, I'd love to see ccrma just become a spin of > the main fedora. Allowing people who want a more multi-purpose > install to also install those same packages without the hassle > of additional repos. This has always been, and continues to be, my end goal. In Nando's case, and doubtless in other cases, it's a matter of "swallowing the pig whole," so to speak. Until we can provide/demonstrate Nando enough value in the Fedora process to incur the switching cost, he will (rightly) do things the way he needs to do them to keep moving forward. So the first step, methinks, is to find more packagers. Nando, if you can actually get some numbers on how many packages are unique to CCRMA, that would be a great start. Now, if you'll excuse me, I've got a couple of potential packagers I'm going to chase down. :) --g -- Greg DeKoenigsberg Community Development Manager Red Hat, Inc. :: 1-919-754-4255 "To whomsoever much hath been given... ...from him much shall be asked" From j.w.r.degoede at hhs.nl Wed Apr 9 17:42:02 2008 From: j.w.r.degoede at hhs.nl (Hans de Goede) Date: Wed, 09 Apr 2008 19:42:02 +0200 Subject: [Fedora-music-list] ardour 2.4 was out In-Reply-To: <20080409150756.GA5301@redhat.com> References: <1207512655.13730.2.camel@sonyvgnnr21s.freehell.org> <47FA29B2.2040007@hhs.nl> <1207679068.20347.28.camel@localhost.localdomain> <3b8f8cb80804081502q66f5e45akb400a90d279f3c09@mail.gmail.com> <47FBC3BE.7050601@redhat.com> <3b8f8cb80804081517s7e5caf8dwf4d2b44fdeaf4d77@mail.gmail.com> <1207738233.9397.40.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20080409150756.GA5301@redhat.com> Message-ID: <47FCFFEA.4080401@hhs.nl> Dave Jones wrote: > On Wed, Apr 09, 2008 at 10:34:14AM -0400, Greg DeKoenigsberg wrote: > > > >> Really, I first envisioned this as a way to help bring CCRMA and Fedora > > >> together. Because the fact is, most of the CCRMA stuff should live in > > >> Fedora anyway. But the fact that CCRMA requires the RT kernel and other > > >> non-standard stuff may make that difficult. > > > > > > I don't think it is the kernel itself. After all I think all apps will > > > work fine on a stock Fedora kernel. They will not be able to run > > > reliably at low latencies but they will run. The "problem" (if there is > > > any) is a combination of many other factors. > > The -rt changes continue to trickle upstream. hopefully eventually this > problem will become moot. > > > > Probably what is needed is more packagers that also use the stuff in day > > > to day music-making (BTW, I'm not complaining about current packagers), > > > and are commited to maintaining packages in the long term. And keeping > > > on top of new versions as they are released. That is what makes Planet > > > CCRMA tick. But packaging is notoriously unsexy stuff to do. I know. > > > > Yep. And yet, we've got hundreds of volunteers doing exactly that in the > > Fedora world. There are many open questions about the quality of these > > packages, though. > > Would it help any if somone else stepped up and started maintaining analogs > of ccrma packages in 'core' ? I'd probably be interested in finding time > to maintain a few of them myself if this made peoples lives easier. Yes, I've been busy pushing ccrma packages into Fedora proper in the past, but I've stopped doing that due to lack of time (just keeping 200+ packages up to date actually takes quite an amount of time). > I've held off from proposing package reviews of several apps (not just > music apps) because someone is maintaining rpms in another repo > I don't think thats a very good argument, if it can be in Fedora, it should be in Fedora, trying to work with existing repo's on this is a good thing of course, but our end users having Fedora + some patent / non free encumbered repo should be all they need. > > It may well be that CCRMA should continue to be fully independent, but > > have a much stronger base of Fedora packages to draw from, and Nando, when > > you see fit, you can supersede a Fedora package with a newer package in > > CCRMA. That would be a pretty good outcome, too. > > I'm beginning to wonder if 3rd party repos are doing us more harm > than good in the long run. > The reason I bring this up is because after several discussions with > people yesterday here at the Linux Foundation collaboration summit, > I heard things like.. > > "I prefer ubuntu/debian because it has more packages." > "true, but what packages are you missing from Fedora?" > "xyz" > "Oh, we have that packaged but it's in repo z" > Exactly the argument I was trying to make above, we need less repos! > I'm sure this small sample of users isn't representative, but it's > definitly holding some users back. Personally, I know I've given up > after finding something isn't packaged in Fedora on many occasions, > and it pains me to say it, but it's sometimes been quicker/easier > to go download a binary of the same opensource app for my mac than it > is to get the same thing running under Fedora. > > Anyway, hyperbole over. How can we improve the situation? > Well if you encounter such a package, atleast at it to the wishlist: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/WishList Also this is a clear example of the fact that we need _more_ packagers. So first of all we need to put a gag in the mouth of those we keep saying their aren't any interesting things left to package, and then we need to mayybe start something like an active marketing campaign that we're looking for packagers, and together with that start up some kind of mentoring group which works one guiding new packages on there first steps. Which reminds me, we haven't been promoting any contributers to mentor status for a while, this is another thing we need to fix! > > Basically: you're doing awesome work, maybe the best work in the Linux > > music space, and we at Fedora need to continue to find incremental ways to > > lighten your load without getting in your way. > > How many CCRMA packages currently have Fedora analogues at this point, > > anyway? > > The apps shouldn't pose too much of a problem to get merged, but I'm wondering > how things like jack fit into the new world order of pulseaudio. > I guess Nando already has to deal with this somehow, so maybe it's > already a solved problem, but things like this and the kernel are the > only technical hurdles afaics? > > In my utopian world, I'd love to see ccrma just become a spin of > the main fedora. I believe this is easily feasible given enough manpower, most ccrma packages are pretty clean, they just need someone to push them through the review process, then the biggest hurdle left is ... the rt-kernel. Well since I seem to be talking to the right person now, I know you hate this question, but ... how strongly would you object to having an rt kernel variant within Fedora? Regards, Hans From gdk at redhat.com Wed Apr 9 17:48:24 2008 From: gdk at redhat.com (Greg DeKoenigsberg) Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2008 13:48:24 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [Fedora-music-list] ardour 2.4 was out In-Reply-To: <47FCFFEA.4080401@hhs.nl> References: <1207512655.13730.2.camel@sonyvgnnr21s.freehell.org> <47FA29B2.2040007@hhs.nl> <1207679068.20347.28.camel@localhost.localdomain> <3b8f8cb80804081502q66f5e45akb400a90d279f3c09@mail.gmail.com> <47FBC3BE.7050601@redhat.com> <3b8f8cb80804081517s7e5caf8dwf4d2b44fdeaf4d77@mail.gmail.com> <1207738233.9397.40.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20080409150756.GA5301@redhat.com> <47FCFFEA.4080401@hhs.nl> Message-ID: On Wed, 9 Apr 2008, Hans de Goede wrote: > Well since I seem to be talking to the right person now, I know you hate this > question, but ... how strongly would you object to having an rt kernel > variant within Fedora? LOL. I asked this question two years ago. I doubt the answer has changed. :) --g -- Greg DeKoenigsberg Community Development Manager Red Hat, Inc. :: 1-919-754-4255 "To whomsoever much hath been given... ...from him much shall be asked" From green at redhat.com Wed Apr 9 16:15:07 2008 From: green at redhat.com (Anthony Green) Date: Wed, 09 Apr 2008 12:15:07 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-music-list] ardour 2.4 was out In-Reply-To: <695e1a650804090830rd7b00deief0dcaf3b1222b11@mail.gmail.com> References: <1207512655.13730.2.camel@sonyvgnnr21s.freehell.org> <47FA29B2.2040007@hhs.nl> <1207679068.20347.28.camel@localhost.localdomain> <3b8f8cb80804081502q66f5e45akb400a90d279f3c09@mail.gmail.com> <47FBC3BE.7050601@redhat.com> <3b8f8cb80804081517s7e5caf8dwf4d2b44fdeaf4d77@mail.gmail.com> <1207738233.9397.40.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20080409150756.GA5301@redhat.com> <695e1a650804090830rd7b00deief0dcaf3b1222b11@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <47FCEB8B.5060600@redhat.com> Hi Hector, Hector Centeno wrote: > I support the idea of having newer versions of pakages in the CCRMA > repos that supersede the ones in the Fedora repos and also agree that > Fernando should get as many volunteers as possible to help him with > the packaging (myself I've been trying to make time for it since I > would like to take care of Csound and knowing that I wouldn't have to > deal with the lengthy official Fedora processes makes it more > appealing). The lengthy official Fedora processes are only lengthy for the initial package review. Once it's in, it can be updated as quickly and as often as the maintainers desire. If, for some reason, Fedora is behind on something, simply file a bugzilla ticket. This process works. > This way then there are two options: for the user > comfortable with slow and "stable" releases there is main Fedora, for > the user needing bleeding edge there is CCRMA. > > My speculation is that nobody is really interested in slow and stable releases of audio software -- just ones that don't break compatibility (my ardour 2.2 project should work with ardour 2.4, etc). If you are already building your own packages, why not co-maintain some set of packages in Fedora? AG From j.w.r.degoede at hhs.nl Wed Apr 9 19:52:26 2008 From: j.w.r.degoede at hhs.nl (Hans de Goede) Date: Wed, 09 Apr 2008 21:52:26 +0200 Subject: [Fedora-music-list] ardour 2.4 was out In-Reply-To: <1207679068.20347.28.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <1207512655.13730.2.camel@sonyvgnnr21s.freehell.org> <47FA29B2.2040007@hhs.nl> <1207679068.20347.28.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <47FD1E7A.2000603@hhs.nl> Fernando Lopez-Lezcano wrote: > On Mon, 2008-04-07 at 16:03 +0200, Hans de Goede wrote: >> ZC Miao wrote: >>> [quote] >>> Ardour 2.4 released >>> Submitted by paul on Mon, 2008-03-31 21:03. :: Articles >>> Well, its over a month later than expected, but Ardour 2.4 is finally >>> here. A respectable list of new features, many small improvements and an >>> important set of bug fixes make up the news for this one. Read more >>> below ... >>> [/quote] >>> >>> So, when will we get it in F8? >>> >> In F-8, I dunno, it is on its way to rawhide / F-9 beta now. Considering that >> this not purely a bug fix release I'm not sure if we want to release this as an >> update to F-8. What do others on this list think? > > I would release it on Fedora 8. It has bug fixes and I think other users > would probably appreciate having the latest. > >> You could grab the srpm from rawhide and build it for F-8, and provide us with >> some feedback on it, that might help. > > I'll probably try a release in the Planet CCRMA testing repos... Since there seems much demand for this I've just pushed a build of ardour-2.4 to the F-8 updates-testing repo (it will show up there with the next update of the update repositories). Please give this a thorough testing, then in a couple of weeks I'll push it to the regular updates repo. Regards, Hans From davej at redhat.com Wed Apr 9 19:58:07 2008 From: davej at redhat.com (Dave Jones) Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2008 15:58:07 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-music-list] ardour 2.4 was out In-Reply-To: <47FCFFEA.4080401@hhs.nl> References: <47FA29B2.2040007@hhs.nl> <1207679068.20347.28.camel@localhost.localdomain> <3b8f8cb80804081502q66f5e45akb400a90d279f3c09@mail.gmail.com> <47FBC3BE.7050601@redhat.com> <3b8f8cb80804081517s7e5caf8dwf4d2b44fdeaf4d77@mail.gmail.com> <1207738233.9397.40.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20080409150756.GA5301@redhat.com> <47FCFFEA.4080401@hhs.nl> Message-ID: <20080409195807.GA24086@redhat.com> On Wed, Apr 09, 2008 at 07:42:02PM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote: > I believe this is easily feasible given enough manpower, most ccrma packages > are pretty clean, they just need someone to push them through the review > process, then the biggest hurdle left is ... the rt-kernel. > > Well since I seem to be talking to the right person now, I know you hate this > question, but ... how strongly would you object to having an rt kernel variant > within Fedora? Not incredibly keen tbh. I'd sooner just add -rt to the regular kernel package and suck it up, but that obviously takes us further from our 'upstream first' mantra. Ingo & Thomas are getting sizable chunks of it merged upstream, but I don't think we'll be seeing it all merged soon, but then again, F10 is quite a ways off, and with a few more kernel releases, who knows. Depends how objectionable the remaining bits are I guess. Given that so many people are now distributing products based on this work, getting it all in mainline is obviously important, and there's no shortage of manpower helping drive it there. All this said, I personally haven't hit any issues with things like MIDI in Fedora where the -rt kernel would have helped me. Maybe my gear is special, but latency between me hitting a key on a synth and having that note show up in rosegarden, and a sound being created is well below perceivable. I'm interested to hear any test cases you guys may have that justify why you need -rt. Right now the guys working on that stuff typically have a bunch of 'boring' test cases more tailored towards replicating situations like stock trades and the like. If we can construct additional use-cases I'm sure Ingo, Thomas & co would be very interested to hear about them. Especially if these cases are triggering different latency paths. Dave -- http://www.codemonkey.org.uk From Arnaud.Gomes at ircam.fr Wed Apr 9 20:51:06 2008 From: Arnaud.Gomes at ircam.fr (Arnaud Gomes-do-Vale) Date: Wed, 09 Apr 2008 22:51:06 +0200 Subject: [Fedora-music-list] ardour 2.4 was out In-Reply-To: <47FCEB8B.5060600@redhat.com> (Anthony Green's message of "Wed, 09 Apr 2008 12:15:07 -0400") References: <1207512655.13730.2.camel@sonyvgnnr21s.freehell.org> <47FA29B2.2040007@hhs.nl> <1207679068.20347.28.camel@localhost.localdomain> <3b8f8cb80804081502q66f5e45akb400a90d279f3c09@mail.gmail.com> <47FBC3BE.7050601@redhat.com> <3b8f8cb80804081517s7e5caf8dwf4d2b44fdeaf4d77@mail.gmail.com> <1207738233.9397.40.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20080409150756.GA5301@redhat.com> <695e1a650804090830rd7b00deief0dcaf3b1222b11@mail.gmail.com> <47FCEB8B.5060600@redhat.com> Message-ID: Hi, First let me introduce myself, as I think I have never posted to this list. I have been rebuilding a few audio packages on CentOS 4 and 5 for a couple of years. As Fernando mentioned earlier, I ended up submitting patches and a few new packages to Planet CCRMA. Anthony Green writes: > My speculation is that nobody is really interested in slow and stable > releases of audio software -- just ones that don't break compatibility > (my ardour 2.2 project should work with ardour 2.4, etc). > > If you are already building your own packages, why not co-maintain > some set of packages in Fedora? As far as I can tell, this point of view (which I fully agree with) is very much the opposite of EPEL's goal of stability. So for me at least, this means contributing directly to Fedora is not really an option. I mean, I could do it, but I wouldn't get much back if I have to build my own packages anyway. :-) That being said, the situation is much better now that it was, say, two years ago, as Linux audio is really getting mature; however many parts of a current Linux audio installation are still moving targets. Building up-to-date audio packages on a distro 6-12 months old is not trivial. I had to build some parts of GNOME that would probably not fit into EPEL for packaging patchage on CentOS 5, for instance. And a reasonably complete audio package set pretty much requires 2 or 3 different versions of wxGTK. -- Arnaud From nando at ccrma.Stanford.EDU Wed Apr 9 21:24:34 2008 From: nando at ccrma.Stanford.EDU (Fernando Lopez-Lezcano) Date: Wed, 09 Apr 2008 14:24:34 -0700 Subject: [Fedora-music-list] ardour 2.4 was out In-Reply-To: References: <1207512655.13730.2.camel@sonyvgnnr21s.freehell.org> <47FA29B2.2040007@hhs.nl> <1207679068.20347.28.camel@localhost.localdomain> <3b8f8cb80804081502q66f5e45akb400a90d279f3c09@mail.gmail.com> <47FBC3BE.7050601@redhat.com> <3b8f8cb80804081517s7e5caf8dwf4d2b44fdeaf4d77@mail.gmail.com> <1207738233.9397.40.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20080409150756.GA5301@redhat.com> <47FCFFEA.4080401@hhs.nl> Message-ID: <1207776274.27575.27.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Wed, 2008-04-09 at 13:48 -0400, Greg DeKoenigsberg wrote: > On Wed, 9 Apr 2008, Hans de Goede wrote: > > > Well since I seem to be talking to the right person now, I know you hate this > > question, but ... how strongly would you object to having an rt kernel > > variant within Fedora? > > LOL. I asked this question two years ago. I doubt the answer has > changed. :) But the situation HAS changed. A LOT. There is now (or is going to be) a realtime kernel in _RedHat Enterprise_ of all places. If it is good and stable for RHEL why wouldn't it be good for Fedora? (but I miss the answer you got a while back which could have been completely different). In the latest spins of my rt kernel I have actually used the patch set of the RHEL beta realtime kernel _and_ the patch set of the latest Fedora kernels [NOT fun to integrate!], with very good results, in fact much better than the stock Ingo patches - don't know exactly why - and the first decent 2.6.24.x realtime kernels I've tested. So there you are. The answer should be different, right? :-P -- Fernando [wow, this list got very lively in a second...] From davej at redhat.com Wed Apr 9 21:40:09 2008 From: davej at redhat.com (Dave Jones) Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2008 17:40:09 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-music-list] ardour 2.4 was out In-Reply-To: <1207776274.27575.27.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <3b8f8cb80804081502q66f5e45akb400a90d279f3c09@mail.gmail.com> <47FBC3BE.7050601@redhat.com> <3b8f8cb80804081517s7e5caf8dwf4d2b44fdeaf4d77@mail.gmail.com> <1207738233.9397.40.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20080409150756.GA5301@redhat.com> <47FCFFEA.4080401@hhs.nl> <1207776274.27575.27.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <20080409214009.GA31199@redhat.com> On Wed, Apr 09, 2008 at 02:24:34PM -0700, Fernando Lopez-Lezcano wrote: > > On Wed, 2008-04-09 at 13:48 -0400, Greg DeKoenigsberg wrote: > > On Wed, 9 Apr 2008, Hans de Goede wrote: > > > > > Well since I seem to be talking to the right person now, I know you hate this > > > question, but ... how strongly would you object to having an rt kernel > > > variant within Fedora? > > > > LOL. I asked this question two years ago. I doubt the answer has > > changed. :) > > But the situation HAS changed. A LOT. There is now (or is going to be) a > realtime kernel in _RedHat Enterprise_ of all places. If it is good and > stable for RHEL why wouldn't it be good for Fedora? Largely a manpower thing. We have staff we can throw at RHEL projects. Fedora, not so much. Supporting an extra kernel variant is a big deal. Given how understaffed the Fedora kernel team is in comparison to the workload dealing with incoming bugs etc, it's not something we should just do and hope for the best. Even with the recent growth within our team, we're still totally buried with stuff to do with the non-rt kernel. > In the latest spins of my rt kernel I have actually used the patch set > of the RHEL beta realtime kernel _and_ the patch set of the latest > Fedora kernels [NOT fun to integrate!] That's also an additional reason why we shy away from it for Fedora. Fedora needs to be lightweight enough that we can quickly move to newer upstream releases. We lost a lot of agility when we were carrying Xen for exactly the same reason. And the idea of 'well have kernel-rt be based on an earlier version' doesn't fly because then userspace has to deal with two possible environments (Another case where Xen burned us). Dave -- http://www.codemonkey.org.uk From nando at ccrma.Stanford.EDU Wed Apr 9 21:40:04 2008 From: nando at ccrma.Stanford.EDU (Fernando Lopez-Lezcano) Date: Wed, 09 Apr 2008 14:40:04 -0700 Subject: [Fedora-music-list] ardour 2.4 was out In-Reply-To: <20080409195807.GA24086@redhat.com> References: <47FA29B2.2040007@hhs.nl> <1207679068.20347.28.camel@localhost.localdomain> <3b8f8cb80804081502q66f5e45akb400a90d279f3c09@mail.gmail.com> <47FBC3BE.7050601@redhat.com> <3b8f8cb80804081517s7e5caf8dwf4d2b44fdeaf4d77@mail.gmail.com> <1207738233.9397.40.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20080409150756.GA5301@redhat.com> <47FCFFEA.4080401@hhs.nl> <20080409195807.GA24086@redhat.com> Message-ID: <1207777204.27575.43.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Wed, 2008-04-09 at 15:58 -0400, Dave Jones wrote: > On Wed, Apr 09, 2008 at 07:42:02PM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote: > > I believe this is easily feasible given enough manpower, most ccrma packages > > are pretty clean, they just need someone to push them through the review > > process, then the biggest hurdle left is ... the rt-kernel. > > > > Well since I seem to be talking to the right person now, I know you hate this > > question, but ... how strongly would you object to having an rt kernel variant > > within Fedora? > > Not incredibly keen tbh. I'd sooner just add -rt to the regular kernel package > and suck it up, but that obviously takes us further from our 'upstream first' > mantra. > > Ingo & Thomas are getting sizable chunks of it merged upstream, but I don't think > we'll be seeing it all merged soon, but then again, F10 is quite a ways off, > and with a few more kernel releases, who knows. > Depends how objectionable the remaining bits are I guess. > Given that so many people are now distributing products based on this work, getting > it all in mainline is obviously important, and there's no shortage of manpower > helping drive it there. > > All this said, I personally haven't hit any issues with things like MIDI in > Fedora where the -rt kernel would have helped me. Maybe my gear is special, > but latency between me hitting a key on a synth and having that note show > up in rosegarden, and a sound being created is well below perceivable. And that would be how many milliseconds? Can you run with 3 to 5 milliseconds latency without xruns on a loaded system with the stock kernel? With the right hardware the answer is probably yes, most of the time. The problem is the small percentage of frames where you _do_ get an xrun and the click that goes with it. It could be nobody notices it, it could be it actually ruins the concert or recording session. What could seem below the perception level to you (caveat: I don't know if you are a musician and what instrument you play) may bother a professional percussionist using the computer as an instrument. It all depends on your demands as a performer. > I'm interested to hear any test cases you guys may have that justify why > you need -rt. Besides realtime performance, all the audio-over-the-network being done at CCRMA needs it (see: http://ccrma.stanford.edu/groups/soundwire/). This is, in a nutshell, multichannel (between 4 and 8 channels) non-compressed high quality bidirectional audio being sent between 2 or 3 geographically separate locations to create a virtual concert hall and jam session or concert. You don't want to add _any_ latency to the one that speed of light already gives us :-) We routinely run at 64 frames (or 128 if the links are not good). The stock Fedora kernel is just not good enough although I'm sure it is getting better all the time. > Right now the guys working on that stuff typically have a > bunch of 'boring' test cases more tailored towards replicating situations > like stock trades and the like. If we can construct additional use-cases > I'm sure Ingo, Thomas & co would be very interested to hear about them. > Especially if these cases are triggering different latency paths. The apps being worked on at CCRMA (jacktrip) would touch both the network drivers and drivers for pro audio cards. Probably disk as well if the same host is being used to record the performance in Ardour. -- Fernando From nando at ccrma.Stanford.EDU Wed Apr 9 21:41:16 2008 From: nando at ccrma.Stanford.EDU (Fernando Lopez-Lezcano) Date: Wed, 09 Apr 2008 14:41:16 -0700 Subject: [Fedora-music-list] ardour 2.4 was out In-Reply-To: <20080409214009.GA31199@redhat.com> References: <3b8f8cb80804081502q66f5e45akb400a90d279f3c09@mail.gmail.com> <47FBC3BE.7050601@redhat.com> <3b8f8cb80804081517s7e5caf8dwf4d2b44fdeaf4d77@mail.gmail.com> <1207738233.9397.40.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20080409150756.GA5301@redhat.com> <47FCFFEA.4080401@hhs.nl> <1207776274.27575.27.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20080409214009.GA31199@redhat.com> Message-ID: <1207777276.27575.45.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Wed, 2008-04-09 at 17:40 -0400, Dave Jones wrote: > On Wed, Apr 09, 2008 at 02:24:34PM -0700, Fernando Lopez-Lezcano wrote: > > > > On Wed, 2008-04-09 at 13:48 -0400, Greg DeKoenigsberg wrote: > > > On Wed, 9 Apr 2008, Hans de Goede wrote: > > > > > > > Well since I seem to be talking to the right person now, I know you hate this > > > > question, but ... how strongly would you object to having an rt kernel > > > > variant within Fedora? > > > > > > LOL. I asked this question two years ago. I doubt the answer has > > > changed. :) > > > > But the situation HAS changed. A LOT. There is now (or is going to be) a > > realtime kernel in _RedHat Enterprise_ of all places. If it is good and > > stable for RHEL why wouldn't it be good for Fedora? > > Largely a manpower thing. We have staff we can throw at RHEL projects. > Fedora, not so much. Yeah, sure, easy to understand (same here :-) -- Fernando > Supporting an extra kernel variant is a big deal. > Given how understaffed the Fedora kernel team is in comparison to the > workload dealing with incoming bugs etc, it's not something we should > just do and hope for the best. Even with the recent growth within > our team, we're still totally buried with stuff to do with the non-rt kernel. > > > In the latest spins of my rt kernel I have actually used the patch set > > of the RHEL beta realtime kernel _and_ the patch set of the latest > > Fedora kernels [NOT fun to integrate!] > > That's also an additional reason why we shy away from it for Fedora. > Fedora needs to be lightweight enough that we can quickly move to newer > upstream releases. We lost a lot of agility when we were carrying Xen > for exactly the same reason. And the idea of 'well have kernel-rt be > based on an earlier version' doesn't fly because then userspace has to > deal with two possible environments (Another case where Xen burned us). From nando at ccrma.Stanford.EDU Wed Apr 9 21:53:56 2008 From: nando at ccrma.Stanford.EDU (Fernando Lopez-Lezcano) Date: Wed, 09 Apr 2008 14:53:56 -0700 Subject: [Fedora-music-list] ardour 2.4 was out In-Reply-To: References: <1207512655.13730.2.camel@sonyvgnnr21s.freehell.org> <47FA29B2.2040007@hhs.nl> <1207679068.20347.28.camel@localhost.localdomain> <3b8f8cb80804081502q66f5e45akb400a90d279f3c09@mail.gmail.com> <47FBC3BE.7050601@redhat.com> <3b8f8cb80804081517s7e5caf8dwf4d2b44fdeaf4d77@mail.gmail.com> <1207738233.9397.40.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1207753243.23450.23.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <1207778036.27575.60.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Wed, 2008-04-09 at 11:23 -0400, Greg DeKoenigsberg wrote: > On Wed, 9 Apr 2008, Fernando Lopez-Lezcano wrote: > >> The alleged benefit for you, Nando, would be to cut your workload by a > >> significant amount. But that clearly isn't happening. > > > > Well, it _has_ happened, just not to the degree, or as fast as we > > expected it to happen. Part of it may be that there are more options now > > in terms of distributions and users have migrated over the years to > > other distros, and some of those may be audio apps packagers as well. > > Right. > > So this is a conversation that I'm having, in some form or another, all > across the Fedora universe. Step 1, for me, was to make sure that Fedora > functioned as an actual *community*. Mission accomplished, more or less. > So step 2 is basically marketing, and showing everybody how awesome Fedora > and Fedora-related projects can be. > > The absence of CCRMA from that survey that got passed around the > ccrma-list a coupld of months back really stuck in my craw, I must say. Hmmm, survey?? > But that's our fault, to some degree. > > So maybe the question is, how do we promote CCRMA? > > I think one way we promote it by noting who does the work. "Maintained by > professors at Stanford" has got to be a pretty big selling point. I'm not into marketing but that one does not quite excite me... :-) Maybe: "a system that works from people that use it", but then what do we do when the system does not work? Or "providing a working low latency sound and music environment since 2001", but then again sometimes things just don't work, see, I'm not good at marketing :-) > I know that a lot of people don't have much stomach for this kind of work, > but it's important, especially in community projects, to generate > excitement around excellent work. I guess the time comes when we have to turn on to marketing? Arghh... How much marketing have I done? One initial post to the cmdist mailing list at CCRMA in 2001 and then mostly word of mouth. Every once in a while the inevitable "which one is the best distro for audio and music" comes up in the linux audio lists and if no one suggests Planet CCRMA then I speak up (a little). More to say, but it is getting late (I'm right now in Berlin of all places, teaching for a few months at TU-Berlin's electronic music studio, just got here last Friday). Nighty night... -- Fernando From davej at redhat.com Wed Apr 9 22:00:34 2008 From: davej at redhat.com (Dave Jones) Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2008 18:00:34 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-music-list] ardour 2.4 was out In-Reply-To: <1207777204.27575.43.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <3b8f8cb80804081502q66f5e45akb400a90d279f3c09@mail.gmail.com> <47FBC3BE.7050601@redhat.com> <3b8f8cb80804081517s7e5caf8dwf4d2b44fdeaf4d77@mail.gmail.com> <1207738233.9397.40.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20080409150756.GA5301@redhat.com> <47FCFFEA.4080401@hhs.nl> <20080409195807.GA24086@redhat.com> <1207777204.27575.43.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <20080409220034.GB31199@redhat.com> On Wed, Apr 09, 2008 at 02:40:04PM -0700, Fernando Lopez-Lezcano wrote: > > All this said, I personally haven't hit any issues with things like MIDI in > > Fedora where the -rt kernel would have helped me. Maybe my gear is special, > > but latency between me hitting a key on a synth and having that note show > > up in rosegarden, and a sound being created is well below perceivable. > > And that would be how many milliseconds? I honestly couldn't say (it's been some time, and I'm a few thousand miles from home right now). > What could seem below the perception level to you (caveat: I don't know > if you are a musician and what instrument you play) may bother a > professional percussionist using the computer as an instrument. It all > depends on your demands as a performer. "musician" may be stretching my abilities somewhat :) But yes, I understand that I'm probably not pushing things perhaps as far as some others may be. > Besides realtime performance, all the audio-over-the-network being done > at CCRMA needs it (see: http://ccrma.stanford.edu/groups/soundwire/). > > This is, in a nutshell, multichannel (between 4 and 8 channels) > non-compressed high quality bidirectional audio being sent between 2 or > 3 geographically separate locations to create a virtual concert hall and > jam session or concert. You don't want to add _any_ latency to the one > that speed of light already gives us :-) We routinely run at 64 frames > (or 128 if the links are not good). The stock Fedora kernel is just not > good enough although I'm sure it is getting better all the time. *nod*. A while ago, I was tempted to add the latency-tracer part of -rt to Fedora kernels just to see what would show up, but Ingo wasn't really interested because he felt that we'd get a lot of reports we'd already fixed in -rt. The fundamental changes to spinlocks is probably the real controversial stuff that's left to go upstream. How well that goes remains to be seemn over the coming months. > > Right now the guys working on that stuff typically have a > > bunch of 'boring' test cases more tailored towards replicating situations > > like stock trades and the like. If we can construct additional use-cases > > I'm sure Ingo, Thomas & co would be very interested to hear about them. > > Especially if these cases are triggering different latency paths. > > The apps being worked on at CCRMA (jacktrip) would touch both the > network drivers and drivers for pro audio cards. Probably disk as well > if the same host is being used to record the performance in Ardour. Ok, that's an interesting use-case and in honesty, I don't think it's too different to the use-cases like the stock trading stuff that people have been focusing on, so it's understandable why you're reaping the same rewards. Dave -- http://www.codemonkey.org.uk From nicholasmanojlovic at gmail.com Thu Apr 10 08:13:50 2008 From: nicholasmanojlovic at gmail.com (Nicholas Manojlovic) Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2008 18:13:50 +1000 Subject: [Fedora-music-list] ardour 2.4 was out In-Reply-To: <20080409195807.GA24086@redhat.com> References: <47FA29B2.2040007@hhs.nl> <3b8f8cb80804081502q66f5e45akb400a90d279f3c09@mail.gmail.com> <47FBC3BE.7050601@redhat.com> <3b8f8cb80804081517s7e5caf8dwf4d2b44fdeaf4d77@mail.gmail.com> <1207738233.9397.40.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20080409150756.GA5301@redhat.com> <47FCFFEA.4080401@hhs.nl> <20080409195807.GA24086@redhat.com> Message-ID: <3b8f8cb80804100113r578b405le3decc14df5a1c3c@mail.gmail.com> "I'm interested to hear any test cases you guys may have that justify why you need -rt. " every.single.time. without rt, the packages I use are virtually useless. performance sucks. with rt, a world of good. it always amazed me that redhat never let Fedora into their 'real-time' kernel plans. would have been great if fedora was bleeding edge for that now. On Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 5:58 AM, Dave Jones wrote: > On Wed, Apr 09, 2008 at 07:42:02PM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote: > > I believe this is easily feasible given enough manpower, most ccrma > packages > > are pretty clean, they just need someone to push them through the > review > > process, then the biggest hurdle left is ... the rt-kernel. > > > > Well since I seem to be talking to the right person now, I know you > hate this > > question, but ... how strongly would you object to having an rt kernel > variant > > within Fedora? > > Not incredibly keen tbh. I'd sooner just add -rt to the regular kernel > package > and suck it up, but that obviously takes us further from our 'upstream > first' > mantra. > > Ingo & Thomas are getting sizable chunks of it merged upstream, but I > don't think > we'll be seeing it all merged soon, but then again, F10 is quite a ways > off, > and with a few more kernel releases, who knows. > Depends how objectionable the remaining bits are I guess. > Given that so many people are now distributing products based on this > work, getting > it all in mainline is obviously important, and there's no shortage of > manpower > helping drive it there. > > All this said, I personally haven't hit any issues with things like MIDI > in > Fedora where the -rt kernel would have helped me. Maybe my gear is > special, > but latency between me hitting a key on a synth and having that note show > up in rosegarden, and a sound being created is well below perceivable. > I'm interested to hear any test cases you guys may have that justify why > you need -rt. Right now the guys working on that stuff typically have a > bunch of 'boring' test cases more tailored towards replicating situations > like stock trades and the like. If we can construct additional use-cases > I'm sure Ingo, Thomas & co would be very interested to hear about them. > Especially if these cases are triggering different latency paths. > > Dave > > -- > http://www.codemonkey.org.uk > > _______________________________________________ > Fedora-music-list mailing list > Fedora-music-list at redhat.com > http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-music-list > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nando at ccrma.Stanford.EDU Thu Apr 10 09:49:54 2008 From: nando at ccrma.Stanford.EDU (Fernando Lopez-Lezcano) Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2008 02:49:54 -0700 Subject: [Fedora-music-list] ardour 2.4 was out In-Reply-To: <47FD1E7A.2000603@hhs.nl> References: <1207512655.13730.2.camel@sonyvgnnr21s.freehell.org> <47FA29B2.2040007@hhs.nl> <1207679068.20347.28.camel@localhost.localdomain> <47FD1E7A.2000603@hhs.nl> Message-ID: <1207820994.2391.6.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Wed, 2008-04-09 at 21:52 +0200, Hans de Goede wrote: > Fernando Lopez-Lezcano wrote: > > On Mon, 2008-04-07 at 16:03 +0200, Hans de Goede wrote: > >> ZC Miao wrote: > >>> [quote] > >>> Ardour 2.4 released > >>> Submitted by paul on Mon, 2008-03-31 21:03. :: Articles > >>> Well, its over a month later than expected, but Ardour 2.4 is finally > >>> here. A respectable list of new features, many small improvements and an > >>> important set of bug fixes make up the news for this one. Read more > >>> below ... > >>> [/quote] > >>> > >>> So, when will we get it in F8? > >>> > >> In F-8, I dunno, it is on its way to rawhide / F-9 beta now. Considering that > >> this not purely a bug fix release I'm not sure if we want to release this as an > >> update to F-8. What do others on this list think? > > > > I would release it on Fedora 8. It has bug fixes and I think other users > > would probably appreciate having the latest. > > > >> You could grab the srpm from rawhide and build it for F-8, and provide us with > >> some feedback on it, that might help. > > > > I'll probably try a release in the Planet CCRMA testing repos... > > Since there seems much demand for this I've just pushed a build of ardour-2.4 > to the F-8 updates-testing repo (it will show up there with the next update of > the update repositories). Please give this a thorough testing, then in a couple > of weeks I'll push it to the regular updates repo. Thanks... For my current testing build for Fedora < 9 I use the libraries that come with Ardour and not the system libraries. I would recommend you do that too. Last I heard it was a big no-no to replace the internal libsndfile with the system one, unless things have changed it is going to break things. Better check with Paul... -- Fernando From nando at ccrma.Stanford.EDU Thu Apr 10 09:54:47 2008 From: nando at ccrma.Stanford.EDU (Fernando Lopez-Lezcano) Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2008 02:54:47 -0700 Subject: [Fedora-music-list] ardour 2.4 was out In-Reply-To: <1207820994.2391.6.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <1207512655.13730.2.camel@sonyvgnnr21s.freehell.org> <47FA29B2.2040007@hhs.nl> <1207679068.20347.28.camel@localhost.localdomain> <47FD1E7A.2000603@hhs.nl> <1207820994.2391.6.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <1207821288.2391.13.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Thu, 2008-04-10 at 02:49 -0700, Fernando Lopez-Lezcano wrote: > > Since there seems much demand for this I've just pushed a build of ardour-2.4 > > to the F-8 updates-testing repo (it will show up there with the next update of > > the update repositories). Please give this a thorough testing, then in a couple > > of weeks I'll push it to the regular updates repo. > > Thanks... > For my current testing build for Fedora < 9 I use the libraries that > come with Ardour and not the system libraries. I would recommend you do > that too. Last I heard it was a big no-no to replace the internal > libsndfile with the system one, unless things have changed it is going > to break things. Better check with Paul... Hector Centeno (in the Planet CCRMA list) tells me that 2.4.1 is out... time to upgrade! :-) -- Fernando From j.w.r.degoede at hhs.nl Thu Apr 10 11:27:30 2008 From: j.w.r.degoede at hhs.nl (Hans de Goede) Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2008 13:27:30 +0200 Subject: [Fedora-music-list] ardour 2.4 was out In-Reply-To: <1207820994.2391.6.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <1207512655.13730.2.camel@sonyvgnnr21s.freehell.org> <47FA29B2.2040007@hhs.nl> <1207679068.20347.28.camel@localhost.localdomain> <47FD1E7A.2000603@hhs.nl> <1207820994.2391.6.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <47FDF9A2.7000105@hhs.nl> Fernando Lopez-Lezcano wrote: > On Wed, 2008-04-09 at 21:52 +0200, Hans de Goede wrote: >> Fernando Lopez-Lezcano wrote: >>> On Mon, 2008-04-07 at 16:03 +0200, Hans de Goede wrote: >>>> ZC Miao wrote: >>>>> [quote] >>>>> Ardour 2.4 released >>>>> Submitted by paul on Mon, 2008-03-31 21:03. :: Articles >>>>> Well, its over a month later than expected, but Ardour 2.4 is finally >>>>> here. A respectable list of new features, many small improvements and an >>>>> important set of bug fixes make up the news for this one. Read more >>>>> below ... >>>>> [/quote] >>>>> >>>>> So, when will we get it in F8? >>>>> >>>> In F-8, I dunno, it is on its way to rawhide / F-9 beta now. Considering that >>>> this not purely a bug fix release I'm not sure if we want to release this as an >>>> update to F-8. What do others on this list think? >>> I would release it on Fedora 8. It has bug fixes and I think other users >>> would probably appreciate having the latest. >>> >>>> You could grab the srpm from rawhide and build it for F-8, and provide us with >>>> some feedback on it, that might help. >>> I'll probably try a release in the Planet CCRMA testing repos... >> Since there seems much demand for this I've just pushed a build of ardour-2.4 >> to the F-8 updates-testing repo (it will show up there with the next update of >> the update repositories). Please give this a thorough testing, then in a couple >> of weeks I'll push it to the regular updates repo. > > Thanks... > For my current testing build for Fedora < 9 I use the libraries that > come with Ardour and not the system libraries. I would recommend you do > that too. Last I heard it was a big no-no to replace the internal > libsndfile with the system one, unless things have changed it is going > to break things. Better check with Paul... > We don't use the system libsnd, only those systemlibs which get enabled by passing SYSLIB=1 to SConstruct, which does not include libsnd. Regards, Hans From j.w.r.degoede at hhs.nl Thu Apr 10 12:40:35 2008 From: j.w.r.degoede at hhs.nl (Hans de Goede) Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2008 14:40:35 +0200 Subject: [Fedora-music-list] ardour 2.4 was out In-Reply-To: <1207821288.2391.13.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <1207512655.13730.2.camel@sonyvgnnr21s.freehell.org> <47FA29B2.2040007@hhs.nl> <1207679068.20347.28.camel@localhost.localdomain> <47FD1E7A.2000603@hhs.nl> <1207820994.2391.6.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1207821288.2391.13.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <47FE0AC3.6080408@hhs.nl> Fernando Lopez-Lezcano wrote: > On Thu, 2008-04-10 at 02:49 -0700, Fernando Lopez-Lezcano wrote: >>> Since there seems much demand for this I've just pushed a build of ardour-2.4 >>> to the F-8 updates-testing repo (it will show up there with the next update of >>> the update repositories). Please give this a thorough testing, then in a couple >>> of weeks I'll push it to the regular updates repo. >> Thanks... >> For my current testing build for Fedora < 9 I use the libraries that >> come with Ardour and not the system libraries. I would recommend you do >> that too. Last I heard it was a big no-no to replace the internal >> libsndfile with the system one, unless things have changed it is going >> to break things. Better check with Paul... > > Hector Centeno (in the Planet CCRMA list) tells me that 2.4.1 is out... > time to upgrade! :-) > 2.4.1 is currently building for F-9 and F-8, I will push it to F-8 updates-testing when its finished building. Regards, Hans From seg at haxxed.com Thu Apr 10 19:52:42 2008 From: seg at haxxed.com (Callum Lerwick) Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2008 14:52:42 -0500 Subject: [Fedora-music-list] ardour 2.4 was out In-Reply-To: <1207738233.9397.40.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <1207512655.13730.2.camel@sonyvgnnr21s.freehell.org> <47FA29B2.2040007@hhs.nl> <1207679068.20347.28.camel@localhost.localdomain> <3b8f8cb80804081502q66f5e45akb400a90d279f3c09@mail.gmail.com> <47FBC3BE.7050601@redhat.com> <3b8f8cb80804081517s7e5caf8dwf4d2b44fdeaf4d77@mail.gmail.com> <1207738233.9397.40.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <1207857162.10656.43.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Wed, 2008-04-09 at 03:50 -0700, Fernando Lopez-Lezcano wrote: > Do we want Fedora/Music to be rock stable? Or do we want a fast moving > music environment that keeps up to the latest and greatest? The later > would seem more "in tune" with Fedora itself and is what I used to do on > Planet CCRMA... Well going by what started this thread, people seem to want the latest and greatest. And the latest and greatest is kind of what Fedora is about. Personally I have used Red Hat/Fedora since RH5.2 because it always seemed to be able to ride the cutting edge without straying in to the ragged bleeding edge. Perhaps we've stumbled over that line since the RHL days, but I don't think I can make an objective judgment anymore. I'm too deep in it now. :) Also, music production is still a fairly new area of open source development, an area that's still in rapid development. With some apps I don't think there is much stability to be found by standing still. But we should be a little bit careful. Perhaps we ought to make better use of "updates-testing". Get updates out quick into testing, and get people to test them before pushing them to the main repo. I wish it was easier to just test certain packages without opening up your system to the entirety of updates-testing... And on a tangent, the main reason I got in to this Fedora music project is due to CCRMA being too slow... as far as keeping up with Fedora itself. :) A while back I was really wanting stuff from CCRMA, but at the time CCRMA was still stuck on FC3/4 when FC5/6 was current. (Or something like that.) That may have changed since then, hopefully because of our work :), but at any rate, we should keep in mind one of the big advantages of moving stuff into Fedora itself is you get the full support of the entire Fedora project when it comes to major distro-wide changes. The upgrade to gcc 4.3 for example. Automated rebuilds are used to detect breakage early on, and fixed before release so that everything is ready to go on release day. No more lagging behind. The farther CCRMA diverges from Fedora, the harder it is to rebase it on a new Fedora release. (Which, as davej pointed out, is the same reasoning behind why we don't like carrying kernel patches...) -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: From totally.burned at gmail.com Fri Apr 25 14:25:20 2008 From: totally.burned at gmail.com (Totally Burned) Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2008 22:25:20 +0800 Subject: [Fedora-music-list] Fedora Core 8 + Rhythmbox 0.11.3: GStreamer plugins to decode "MP3" files cannot be found Message-ID: <62370b9c0804250725sa415920wc66d57059abf8915@mail.gmail.com> Hi, :) I have just installed Fedora Core 8 and wanted to import and play MP3 files with Rhythmbox 0.11.3. But I get the message 'The GStreamer plugins to decode "MP3" files cannot be found'. Could anyone tell me where to find them and how to install them? Thanks if so :) David -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rfcompte at gmail.com Fri Apr 25 14:55:13 2008 From: rfcompte at gmail.com (Rafael F. Compte) Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2008 11:55:13 -0300 Subject: [Fedora-music-list] Fedora Core 8 + Rhythmbox 0.11.3: GStreamer plugins to decode "MP3" files cannot be found In-Reply-To: <62370b9c0804250725sa415920wc66d57059abf8915@mail.gmail.com> References: <62370b9c0804250725sa415920wc66d57059abf8915@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <56e2d9e50804250755h6d371387j61009136a60a0566@mail.gmail.com> 2008/4/25 Totally Burned : > Hi, :) > > I have just installed Fedora Core 8 and wanted to import and play MP3 files > with Rhythmbox 0.11.3. > > But I get the message 'The GStreamer plugins to decode "MP3" files cannot be > found'. > > Could anyone tell me where to find them and how to install them? > > Thanks if so :) > > David Hi David, welcome to the Fedora community. Don't worry! That's easy to fix. It looks like you need a third party repository. Myself I use only livna, which you can find at rpm.livna.org and has almost everything you will need. You can read their instruction on how to enable it. But ff you have no previous experience enabling repos and such I recommend the excellent guide located at http://www.mjmwired.net/resources/mjm-fedora-f8.html. There you will find instructions on how to set up your Fedora installation. Just one little advice: Don't enable more than one extra repository. If you install livna, stick with it otherwise you will end up having missing dependencies aka "rpm hell" Greetings, Rafael From totally.burned at gmail.com Fri Apr 25 16:13:16 2008 From: totally.burned at gmail.com (Totally Burned) Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2008 00:13:16 +0800 Subject: [Fedora-music-list] Fedora Core 8 + Rhythmbox 0.11.3: GStreamer plugins to decode "MP3" files cannot be found In-Reply-To: <62370b9c0804250911o1d98ad6ft3f849f191ce194af@mail.gmail.com> References: <62370b9c0804250725sa415920wc66d57059abf8915@mail.gmail.com> <56e2d9e50804250755h6d371387j61009136a60a0566@mail.gmail.com> <62370b9c0804250911o1d98ad6ft3f849f191ce194af@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <62370b9c0804250913y73b2bbbci4c8a8f05b129408e@mail.gmail.com> Rafael, Greg, Felipe, Thanks for the tips. :) Fixed that problem now, by installing xmms. I found good HOW-TOs at http://fedorasolved.org/ For the info of any one with the same problem, that helped for the changing the repository and for installing xmms. David -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sboucher_nb at yahoo.ca Sat Apr 26 00:50:55 2008 From: sboucher_nb at yahoo.ca (S Boucher) Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2008 17:50:55 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Fedora-music-list] Re: Fedora-music-list Digest, Vol 20, Issue 10 Message-ID: <952607.31915.qm@web58913.mail.re1.yahoo.com> ...to bad it's that hard for a newbie to install MP3 support on LINUX.... SB ----- Original Message ---- From: "fedora-music-list-request at redhat.com" To: fedora-music-list at redhat.com Sent: Friday, April 25, 2008 12:00:24 PM Subject: Fedora-music-list Digest, Vol 20, Issue 10 Send Fedora-music-list mailing list submissions to fedora-music-list at redhat.com To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-music-list or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to fedora-music-list-request at redhat.com You can reach the person managing the list at fedora-music-list-owner at redhat.com When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of Fedora-music-list digest..." Today's Topics: 1. Fedora Core 8 + Rhythmbox 0.11.3: GStreamer plugins to decode "MP3" files cannot be found (Totally Burned) 2. Re: Fedora Core 8 + Rhythmbox 0.11.3: GStreamer plugins to decode "MP3" files cannot be found (Rafael F. Compte) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2008 22:25:20 +0800 From: "Totally Burned" Subject: [Fedora-music-list] Fedora Core 8 + Rhythmbox 0.11.3: GStreamer plugins to decode "MP3" files cannot be found To: fedora-music-list at redhat.com Message-ID: <62370b9c0804250725sa415920wc66d57059abf8915 at mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Hi, :) I have just installed Fedora Core 8 and wanted to import and play MP3 files with Rhythmbox 0.11.3. But I get the message 'The GStreamer plugins to decode "MP3" files cannot be found'. Could anyone tell me where to find them and how to install them? Thanks if so :) David -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-music-list/attachments/20080425/dd455a16/attachment.html ------------------------------ Message: 2 Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2008 11:55:13 -0300 From: "Rafael F. Compte" Subject: Re: [Fedora-music-list] Fedora Core 8 + Rhythmbox 0.11.3: GStreamer plugins to decode "MP3" files cannot be found To: "Totally Burned" , Fedora-music-list at redhat.com Message-ID: <56e2d9e50804250755h6d371387j61009136a60a0566 at mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 2008/4/25 Totally Burned : > Hi, :) > > I have just installed Fedora Core 8 and wanted to import and play MP3 files > with Rhythmbox 0.11.3. > > But I get the message 'The GStreamer plugins to decode "MP3" files cannot be > found'. > > Could anyone tell me where to find them and how to install them? > > Thanks if so :) > > David Hi David, welcome to the Fedora community. Don't worry! That's easy to fix. It looks like you need a third party repository. Myself I use only livna, which you can find at rpm.livna.org and has almost everything you will need. You can read their instruction on how to enable it. But ff you have no previous experience enabling repos and such I recommend the excellent guide located at http://www.mjmwired.net/resources/mjm-fedora-f8.html. There you will find instructions on how to set up your Fedora installation. Just one little advice: Don't enable more than one extra repository. If you install livna, stick with it otherwise you will end up having missing dependencies aka "rpm hell" Greetings, Rafael ------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Fedora-music-list mailing list Fedora-music-list at redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-music-list End of Fedora-music-list Digest, Vol 20, Issue 10 ************************************************* __________________________________________________________________ Looking for the perfect gift? Give the gift of Flickr! http://www.flickr.com/gift/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sboucher_nb at yahoo.ca Sat Apr 26 00:53:05 2008 From: sboucher_nb at yahoo.ca (S Boucher) Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2008 17:53:05 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Fedora-music-list] Re: Fedora-music-list Digest, Vol 20, Issue 10 Message-ID: <798247.96781.qm@web58914.mail.re1.yahoo.com> ppl use MP3 and AVI and DVD ...every day .... not some ogg vorbis freeware stuff.. ----- Original Message ---- From: S Boucher To: fedora-music-list at redhat.com Sent: Friday, April 25, 2008 8:50:55 PM Subject: Re: Fedora-music-list Digest, Vol 20, Issue 10 ...to bad it's that hard for a newbie to install MP3 support on LINUX.... SB ----- Original Message ---- From: "fedora-music-list-request at redhat.com" To: fedora-music-list at redhat.com Sent: Friday, April 25, 2008 12:00:24 PM Subject: Fedora-music-list Digest, Vol 20, Issue 10 Send Fedora-music-list mailing list submissions to fedora-music-list at redhat.com To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-music-list or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to fedora-music-list-request at redhat.com You can reach the person managing the list at fedora-music-list-owner at redhat.com When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of Fedora-music-list digest..." Today's Topics: 1. Fedora Core 8 + Rhythmbox 0.11.3: GStreamer plugins to decode "MP3" files cannot be found (Totally Burned) 2. Re: Fedora Core 8 + Rhythmbox 0.11.3: GStreamer plugins to decode "MP3" files cannot be found (Rafael F. Compte) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2008 22:25:20 +0800 From: "Totally Burned" Subject: [Fedora-music-list] Fedora Core 8 + Rhythmbox 0.11.3: GStreamer plugins to decode "MP3" files cannot be found To: fedora-music-list at redhat.com Message-ID: <62370b9c0804250725sa415920wc66d57059abf8915 at mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Hi, :) I have just installed Fedora Core 8 and wanted to import and play MP3 files with Rhythmbox 0.11.3. But I get the message 'The GStreamer plugins to decode "MP3" files cannot be found'. Could anyone tell me where to find them and how to install them? Thanks if so :) David -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-music-list/attachments/20080425/dd455a16/attachment.html ------------------------------ Message: 2 Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2008 11:55:13 -0300 From: "Rafael F. Compte" Subject: Re: [Fedora-music-list] Fedora Core 8 + Rhythmbox 0.11.3: GStreamer plugins to decode "MP3" files cannot be found To: "Totally Burned" , Fedora-music-list at redhat.com Message-ID: <56e2d9e50804250755h6d371387j61009136a60a0566 at mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 2008/4/25 Totally Burned : > Hi, :) > > I have just installed Fedora Core 8 and wanted to import and play MP3 files > with Rhythmbox 0.11.3. > > But I get the message 'The GStreamer plugins to decode "MP3" files cannot be > found'. > > Could anyone tell me where to find them and how to install them? > > Thanks if so :) > > David Hi David, welcome to the Fedora community. Don't worry! That's easy to fix. It looks like you need a third party repository. Myself I use only livna, which you can find at rpm.livna.org and has almost everything you will need. You can read their instruction on how to enable it. But ff you have no previous experience enabling repos and such I recommend the excellent guide located at http://www.mjmwired.net/resources/mjm-fedora-f8.html. There you will find instructions on how to set up your Fedora installation. Just one little advice: Don't enable more than one extra repository. If you install livna, stick with it otherwise you will end up having missing dependencies aka "rpm hell" Greetings, Rafael ------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Fedora-music-list mailing list Fedora-music-list at redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-music-list End of Fedora-music-list Digest, Vol 20, Issue 10 ************************************************* ________________________________ Looking for the perfect gift?Give the gift of Flickr! __________________________________________________________________ Looking for the perfect gift? Give the gift of Flickr! http://www.flickr.com/gift/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From seg at haxxed.com Sat Apr 26 01:26:35 2008 From: seg at haxxed.com (Callum Lerwick) Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2008 20:26:35 -0500 Subject: [Fedora-music-list] Re: Fedora-music-list Digest, Vol 20, Issue 10 In-Reply-To: <798247.96781.qm@web58914.mail.re1.yahoo.com> References: <798247.96781.qm@web58914.mail.re1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1209173195.5050.72.camel@localhost> On Fri, 2008-04-25 at 17:53 -0700, S Boucher wrote: > ppl use MP3 and AVI and DVD ...every day .... not some ogg vorbis > freeware stuff.. gb2vista -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 197 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: