[PlanetCCRMA] [Fedora-music-list] pulseaudio-1.1-3

[Christopher R. Antila]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Hi Simon :

I've obviously never encountered anything like your use case. How is
it that it takes you 3-4 months to become productive in a
newly-installed Fedora release? It only takes me about 3-4
hours--clearly you're doing something time-consuming. My intuition
suggests you're probably compiling applications that aren't in the
Fedora or Planet CCRMA repositories... but a rolling release would
make this worse, because your applications would break at unexpected
times.

So to continue the solution-finding discussion, I have two questions:
1.) Why does it take you 3-4 months to be productive in a Fedora
release, and how could that be reduced to 5 minutes? Let's hear your
ideal situation, no matter how impractical it is (might be!)
2.) You suggested that "more packagers" isn't the only way to an
audio-production Fedora spin. What other strategies did you have in
mind? OpenSuse Build Service?


Christopher.

On 01/02/2012 05:01 AM, Simon Lewis wrote:
> Hello Christopher
> 
> Many thanks for your response.
> 
> Yes, the kernel updates in fc15 are very positive and in terms of
> device support the 3.1.x (aka 2.6.41.x) is very good.
> 
> My main grip is with the fixed releases as there always comes a
> point when I have no choice but to upgrade to a newer fedora
> release because I need a particular (new) feature in an application
> that will not build against the out-dated libraries in the
> currently installed released, and the libraries cannot be updated
> because of soname/sonumber bumps, etc..
> 
> Just to give an example, I have just received notification from
> the digikam developers that the mpeg video export has been
> reintroduced after 2 years absence (whilst digikam was rebuilt
> against kde4). Unfortunately digikam 2.4 cannot be built against
> the KDE 4.6.x libraries....
> 
> The preupgrade package/route has proved to work well over the
> years... but there are always a number of apps that I need to build
> from scratch and configuration options that I need to set after
> upgrading to get a working system to my requirements. I don't have
> that much spare time as I would like to concentrate on Linux and
> usually need 3-4 months after a new fedora release before I can be
> creative/productive again. Thus from a user point of view a rolling
> update is very attractive. Doubling up computers to bridge the gap
> is not a financial option.
> 
> Does fedora need more packagers, or should all options to reduce
> the workload be investigated? Is maintaining several releases or
> just one rolling release cause more work? I can understand fixed
> releases for enterprise systems whereby a large number of
> proprietary applications (e.g. CAD/CMS systems) are installed, but
> this is not the fedora user base.
> 
> Best regards, Simon
> 
> Am 01.01.2012 22:57, schrieb Christopher Antila:
>> Hi:
>> 
>> On 01/01/2012 05:14 AM, Simon Lewis wrote:
>>> ... The biggest contribution that the Fedora-music team can
>>> make is too persuade the fedora-core team to introduce a
>>> rolling update release aka openSUSE Tumbelweed and Linux Mint.
>>> The multimedia apps (on linux) are bleeding edge whereby the
>>> developers of the most interesting apps are willing to make bug
>>> fixes and introduce new features quickly. Unfortunately, these
>>> improvements upstream never filter down to the fedora repos
>>> mostly because there are too few fedora packagers. A single 
>>> rolling release with snapshot releases for marketing purposes
>>> would meet fedora aims for an actual distribution and
>>> significantly reduce the work load.
>> 
>> I used to be a supporter of the rolling-release idea, but it
>> seems to me that Fedora already strikes a good balance. As you
>> noted, it all comes down to the initiative and number of package
>> maintainers.
>> 
>> Some packages, such as the kernel, are generally updated when
>> new upstream versions are ready. More often than not, it seems,
>> both of the currently-maintained Fedora releases are running or
>> are about to run the same kernel version. Even KDE has generally
>> followed this update pattern, although it was broken with Fedora
>> 15 and 16, which have KDE 4.6 and 4.7, respectively.
>> 
>> All I'm really saying is that convincing everybody to switch to
>> a rolling release is going to be more effort than it's worth,
>> because Fedora already accepts major version updates to packages
>> in the same OS release cycle. As you noted, what we need is more
>> packagers.
>> 
>> 
>> Christopher. _______________________________________________ 
>> music mailing list music at lists.fedoraproject.org 
>> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/music
> 
> _______________________________________________ music mailing list 
> music at lists.fedoraproject.org 
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/music
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.18 (GNU/Linux)

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJPB4JvAAoJEInCktGVqZ8Vh9gH/0ieYprxnvQDHoa4Cd/I0r8N
BE/brMO+J6dj40wOamJToXK9GPoveZdkSfutDS/+MEiHViL+/lojEMzNEkwVUPoC
yOOMKuDMwf+O+62hCcR1RrMB8V5B5MTIFP31x3we1yd1HyVLmXz5kacbUGO2HeS6
t75tReWeRiCPAO90MqF/82XGEEVgBRA/flvLGv7RkRJp1FUgV66SrKGmGDIqQL7q
T+oYOqObX9l6sX6k5Y04eWO+xDZllIsR61EvE+W7jstVBWydocphLePC2uo4h7ej
PMMRe+PY4cu38LzKL6MgY8jDtxIjEw1u0nI2iv7tR07+qQuwxSc5shECKZwhKrk=
=335r
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----