6 May
2009
6 May
'09
11:48 p.m.
James Cameron wrote:
Fedora is hardly a dumbed down distribution. IMO it's most likely a
problem with the people who package for multimedia on Fedora [...]
So talk to them.
I will once I have assessed the reason behind the decisions and this
list is a good place to get an overview as there are several people on
it who do have indepth experience with packaging apps.
This is a broad reference to Linux Multimedia community if such a thing
even exists. We certainly have a Linux Audio community.
LAC: Linux Audio Conference
LAD: Linux Audio Developers
On Thu, May 07, 2009 at 08:04:27AM +0700, Patrick
Shirkey wrote:
There are no major bugs with jack and mplayer has had working jack
support for over 5 years now. If it's a political decision then that's a
pretty big call to make. I didn't find any optional packages with yum
search.
Doesn't have to be a major bug with jack for such a decision to be made
... a minor bug can do it. And remember that it can be bugs that only
exist between versions of jack and mplayer that you aren't using.
Again, I think you should ask them. Whinging here about a distribution
packager's choices when the packager isn't going to respond seems a
pointless exercise.
That's a bit harsh. I'm hardly whinging at all. I'm attempting to have a
discussion about a topic that I think has relevance on this list.
Basically the seemingly large difference between linux audio apps and
their packaging (at least on Fedora)
Obviously. But if one installs ffmpeg from one of
the reccomended yum
repostitories and the version of blender that is installed is not the
one that is compiled against ffmpeg then it just makes things confusing
and annoying for an average user.
I disagree, it's just ignorance of the process. While ignorance can
cause annoyance, it's not justified.
But I chose to install blender from a system that
is setup to use the
non restricted packages and instead I get a restricted version. Why is a
restricted version given priority over a non restricted version?
You should ask the people who prepared the non restricted package
repository.
Similar situation has happened to me, when a security update was made to
a package in the restricted repository it had a version one higher than
the one in the non-restricted repository. Between the time that the
restricted packager had released a package, and the non-restricted
packager had caught up and released one, any user who updated their
packages would lose functionality.
It is one of the risks of mixing restricted and unrestricted package
repositories on your system.
Jack is included in fedora core IIUC so I have no idea
why anyone
would compile mplayer without jack support.
Why not ask them? I imagine you'd find either some bug, or they
wanted
to promote some other audio interface, or they've made it an optional
package.
To me it just
highlights the state of multimedia support in Fedora
and possibly other OS's where there is still a level of disconnect
that IMO has been overcome in the LAD community and is shown by the
people who package the audio apps.
On the other hand, it simplifies the packaging, and gets the packages
out there in some form that basically works. It might not work to the
level of excellence that we demand. A dumbed down distribution.
but it could
be symptomatic of a more institutionalised problem where
Linux Multimedia is not at the same level that we can see with Linux
Audio across the board.
Institutionalised? What institution?
I'm
wondering if this could be partly due to the long term affect of
the annual LAC on the LAD community?
Sorry, I don't know what these acronymns mean.