Ubuntu Studio CDImage Daily Report for 20080407
Generated: Mon Apr 7 05:25:55 UTC 2008 âââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââ First, uninstallable packages: Totals by arch: (there were 0 all up) -- Ubuntu-Studio-devel mailing list Ubuntu-Studio-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-studio-devel
Re: no libasound_module_pcm_jack.so in Ubuntu Hardy?
Am Montag, den 07.04.2008, 13:52 +0200 schrieb Richard Spindler: > Am Montag, den 07.04.2008, 12:45 +0100 schrieb Toby Smithe: > > This is a great idea, but subject to the caveat I described above, the > > only solution would be to have two copies of the alsa-plugins source > > in Ubuntu - one in main, and providing most plug-ins, and the other in > > universe, providing only those that require universe > > build-dependencies (ie, jack). This is not really desirable, but if > > you wish to pursue it, the place to do that would be > > I don't think its necessary to have two copies of that package, but two > _different_ packages that complement each other. Ups, okay, I see what you mean, you were talking about the source, not the binary packages. Sorry, got that mixed up. ;-) Cheers -Richard -- Ubuntu-Studio-devel mailing list Ubuntu-Studio-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-studio-devel
Re: no libasound_module_pcm_jack.so in Ubuntu Hardy?
Am Montag, den 07.04.2008, 12:45 +0100 schrieb Toby Smithe: > This is a great idea, but subject to the caveat I described above, the > only solution would be to have two copies of the alsa-plugins source > in Ubuntu - one in main, and providing most plug-ins, and the other in > universe, providing only those that require universe > build-dependencies (ie, jack). This is not really desirable, but if > you wish to pursue it, the place to do that would be I don't think its necessary to have two copies of that package, but two _different_ packages that complement each other. Cheers -Richard -- Ubuntu-Studio-devel mailing list Ubuntu-Studio-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-studio-devel
Re: no libasound_module_pcm_jack.so in Ubuntu Hardy?
On Mon, Apr 7, 2008 at 12:30 PM, Richard Spindler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi, > > I just tried to use an alsa application with jack in my newly installed > Ubuntu Hardy, and to my horror I noticed that the jack-alsa plugin is > not in libasound2-plugins any more. This is due to an issue in the build system which means that packages in main (ie, alsa-plugins) cannot build-depend on packages in universe (ie, jack). > > the jack-module won't be included in the default libasound2-plugins > package because someone wants to install it by default, but does not > want to have libjack in by default. On launchpad it was suggested to add > a package like libasound2-plugins-extra that would ship this alsa-module > and the others that are missing. > > What do you think? This is a great idea, but subject to the caveat I described above, the only solution would be to have two copies of the alsa-plugins source in Ubuntu - one in main, and providing most plug-ins, and the other in universe, providing only those that require universe build-dependencies (ie, jack). This is not really desirable, but if you wish to pursue it, the place to do that would be ubuntu-devel-discuss. I've forwarded this e-mail to Launchpad bug 197957. Good luck, Toby -- Ubuntu-Studio-devel mailing list Ubuntu-Studio-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-studio-devel
no libasound_module_pcm_jack.so in Ubuntu Hardy?
Hi, I just tried to use an alsa application with jack in my newly installed Ubuntu Hardy, and to my horror I noticed that the jack-alsa plugin is not in libasound2-plugins any more. As far as I know Ubuntu Studio uses packages available in Ubuntu so I assume that if I can't find the jack-alsa-module anywhere in Ubuntu, its not in Ubuntu Studio too. IMHO this can be pretty much a showstopper bug, any opinion about how to resolve that? the jack-module won't be included in the default libasound2-plugins package because someone wants to install it by default, but does not want to have libjack in by default. On launchpad it was suggested to add a package like libasound2-plugins-extra that would ship this alsa-module and the others that are missing. What do you think? Cheers -Richard -- Ubuntu-Studio-devel mailing list Ubuntu-Studio-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-studio-devel
Re: license & soundfont
On Mon, 7 Apr 2008 08:56:15 +0100 "Toby Smithe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, Apr 7, 2008 at 12:35 AM, Cory K. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > This is one place where there is sometimes a difference in > > Debian/Ubuntu. I've seen quite a bit of CC items go into Ubuntu. > > All the Ubuntu Studio art for one. Tango I believe is another case. > > > > I think it depends on the specific CC license. > > Look here: [0] > > My first guess was that the only problem would be with Non-Commercial, > which doesn't give all users equal rights to use the software. Would > Canonical be using the package commercially, by providing it in a > distribution with commercial support? The same applies for No > Derivatives. > > However, it seems that there are many more problems with the > BY-attribution licence than with NC, owing to ambiguities and drafting > technicalities, rather than the specific nature of the licence being > incompatible with the goal of the project. > > So, I would recommend against using the CC licences, even if the NC or > ND licence was never to be considered, and even if Ubuntu is more > relaxed on its terms of distribution (for who is really going to start > legal action on Canonical because of a technicality in a licence > that's trying to be Free?), because I'm sure at some point this > package - as opposed to the Ubuntu Studio art - will be distributed by > Debian, too. > > Now, having written all that (damn!), I've just found these sites: > [1][2][3]. This informs me that there is now a version 3 of the > licences, which appears to resolve Debian's issues. It is still not > clear whether a package under version 3 would be accepted, but I am > pretty certain that it would, especially considering that > ubuntustudio-look etc (version 2.5? Not sure what the status of this > is, either...) provided in Ubuntu. > > Considering this is so tentative, I would nonetheless advise against > choosing a CC licence, unless someone wants to write debian-legal to > confirm the status. Choose something more certain! > > I'm keen to hear what the subject of this discussion is: Philipp, are > you creating a new SoundFont? :D > > Have fun, > > Toby > > [0] http://people.debian.org/~evan/ccsummary.html > [1] http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Version_3 > [2] > http://evan.prodromou.name/Debian_Creative_Commons_Workgroup_report > [3] http://diveintomark.org/archives/2007/07/05/cc-debian-continued > Ah, thanks a lot, the info I found about incompatibility was about version 2.0 and I didn't check what was latest. It's great news. We will try to sample a Mellotron in a few hours, which should end up as a soundfont. The problem we have is that we don't own the Instrument. One of us would even pay a little to be able to sample the Instrument, but not much. We'll try to find out what the Instruments owner thinks about what we are planing to do (release under a 'free' license) and offer him some options regarding licensing. Having the choice of cc is a clear benefit there. Thanks for the help again, I'll tell you guys if we were successful. -Philipp -- Ubuntu-Studio-devel mailing list Ubuntu-Studio-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-studio-devel
Re: Adding software updates
On Mon, Apr 7, 2008 at 1:52 AM, Jeremiah Benham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I am one of the maintainers for the Gnu project Denemo. I am also an > ubuntustudio users. Is there a way to have my denemo ubuntu .deb package > included in ubuntustudio? We just had two releases since the version > that is in ubuntustudio. Hi, Generally, we sync the version of the package that is in Debian. This was last done at version 0.7.5-4, as you can see. Ubuntu Studio follows the Ubuntu release cycle[0]. As it is so late in the cycle now, it is doubtful that a(n archive) freeze exception will be granted for the package to be updated. There is nonetheless a chance that 0.7.7 can be included in hardy-backports after Hardy is released, and in gutsy-backports now, with a little work. Please see [1]. The new version will undoubtedly be provided in Intrepid (8.10). -- Toby [0] https://wiki.ubuntu.com/HardyReleaseSchedule [1] https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuBackports -- Ubuntu-Studio-devel mailing list Ubuntu-Studio-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-studio-devel
Re: license & soundfont
On Mon, Apr 7, 2008 at 12:35 AM, Cory K. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > This is one place where there is sometimes a difference in > Debian/Ubuntu. I've seen quite a bit of CC items go into Ubuntu. All the > Ubuntu Studio art for one. Tango I believe is another case. > > I think it depends on the specific CC license. Look here: [0] My first guess was that the only problem would be with Non-Commercial, which doesn't give all users equal rights to use the software. Would Canonical be using the package commercially, by providing it in a distribution with commercial support? The same applies for No Derivatives. However, it seems that there are many more problems with the BY-attribution licence than with NC, owing to ambiguities and drafting technicalities, rather than the specific nature of the licence being incompatible with the goal of the project. So, I would recommend against using the CC licences, even if the NC or ND licence was never to be considered, and even if Ubuntu is more relaxed on its terms of distribution (for who is really going to start legal action on Canonical because of a technicality in a licence that's trying to be Free?), because I'm sure at some point this package - as opposed to the Ubuntu Studio art - will be distributed by Debian, too. Now, having written all that (damn!), I've just found these sites: [1][2][3]. This informs me that there is now a version 3 of the licences, which appears to resolve Debian's issues. It is still not clear whether a package under version 3 would be accepted, but I am pretty certain that it would, especially considering that ubuntustudio-look etc (version 2.5? Not sure what the status of this is, either...) provided in Ubuntu. Considering this is so tentative, I would nonetheless advise against choosing a CC licence, unless someone wants to write debian-legal to confirm the status. Choose something more certain! I'm keen to hear what the subject of this discussion is: Philipp, are you creating a new SoundFont? :D Have fun, Toby [0] http://people.debian.org/~evan/ccsummary.html [1] http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Version_3 [2] http://evan.prodromou.name/Debian_Creative_Commons_Workgroup_report [3] http://diveintomark.org/archives/2007/07/05/cc-debian-continued -- Ubuntu-Studio-devel mailing list Ubuntu-Studio-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-studio-devel
