[PlanetCCRMA] State of Fedora 26 repo

Yury Bulka setthemfree at privacyrequired.com
Wed Oct 25 01:27:31 PDT 2017

Do I understand correctly that at present moment SC includes their own
versions of third-party libs?

bernardobarros at gmail.com writes:

> On Sun, 2017-10-22 at 12:00 -0700, Fernando Lopez-Lezcano wrote:
>> I don't think there are any licensing issues. At some point I think 
>> there was a problem with boost as SC needed its own version (and
>> Fedora 
>> does not like that, you have to link with existing libraries instead
>> of 
>> using a different one).
> I don't think that's a good idea. Even sc developers don't know for
> sure what can go wrong with a boost lib update. 
> I think an independent repository will always be necessary for such
> cases, and for the realtime kernel.

More information about the PlanetCCRMA mailing list