Re: Pencil aimed @ 20080702 REVU day
On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 03:04:31PM -0400, Cory K. wrote: > Janne Jokitalo wrote: > > Just to reduce any possible misunderstandings, I meant whether someone who > > had > > used pencil, knew about the possible better features/lesser bug amounts in > > the > > newer code. 0.4.3b has been around a while now. > > Ahh Well, thats still a no. :P I've used the current version but > noticed bugs. Maybe the upstream dev can speak to this? > > Have you made contact? Yes, but they seem not to be too keen on responding. Thus I created the package using a snapshot of their svn repository. I tested that it ran, at least, but not further. I trust the actual users to do the functional testing for bugs later when it can be installed from a PPA. Any bugs can be forwarded to upstream BTS if filed in Launchpad. -- Jaska -- 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: next meeting: topics? date?
On Mon, Jul 07, 2008 at 09:45:20AM -0400, Cory K. wrote: > Luis de Bethencourt wrote: > > Next meeting is coming soon. > > Next Saturday? (12/7/08) Fine by me, if time of day is suitable. 1900UTC anyone? > Topics I can think of: > * Openness of our systems/resources. *blink* *blink* What?! > * Package status. On my part, pencil is now in REVU [0], and the codebase can be found under our team code page in lp.net [1]. There are a few lintian errors to be fixed before I'll upload .debs into any PPAs (either my personal one of the team's), but it compiles fine right out with either debuild, or pbuilder from the source package. Oh and this is Intrepid we're talking about, you'll have to modify debian/control a bit if you want to compile a .deb for Hardy. Talk to me if you want this. [2] [0] http://revu.ubuntuwire.org/details.py?package=pencil [1] https://code.edge.launchpad.net/~ubuntustudio-dev/pencil/pencil-svn [2] AstralJava @ irc.freenode.net #ubuntustudio-devel -- Jaska -- 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: Codec metapackages?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Ok. But think that we already have alsa-firmware packages in Medibuntu. > And this is a well maintained and used repository: there is libdvdcss, > some restricted codecs, etc... It means users watching dvds on Ubuntu > are aware of the Medibuntu Project. Maybe we could just add the > medibuntu repository to the checkbox list in Synaptic, for Ubuntu Studio > ?? then, considering it as an second kind of "restricted" repository, > any user who wants to install all codecs, can do it more easy. > > Toine > It's not about how well maintained Medibuntu is. Its about doing everything we can *in* Ubuntu. We would be able to ship the "free" codecs and users can grab the "nonfree" ones themselves. Also, adding repos by default is not trivial (maybe impossible as things are) and really something we're not in a position to undertake atm. -Cory \m/ -- 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: Codec metapackages?
Cory K. a écrit : > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >> Cory K. a écrit : >> >> >>> Luis de Bethencourt wrote: >>> >>> On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 2:42 PM, Cory K. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm wondering if we should go through the trouble of creating to > metapackages for A/V codecs? The obvious free and nonfree. > > They would include any audio *and* video codec that fits into either > category. "Free" could ship on the disks. > > Thoughts? > > -Cory \m/ > > Codecs are in a legal void I am not very clear about. I would need somebody to clarify me how does Ubuntu and Canonical deal with sharing codecs that don't explicitely permit this in their license uses. Maybe having a metapackage of so in an official project as Ubuntu Studio is a lawyer no no. Luis >>> I shoulda mentioned this. Maybe just split the 2 based on archive. >>> free=Universe, nonfree=Multiverse. That way, we should be clear. And the >>> lists that actually make up the metas is up for debate. I'm more just >>> wondering about the validity of the idea. >>> >>> -Cory \m/ >>> >>> >> Maybe this should be a package we can propose to the Medibuntu project. >> >> Thay already have a metapackage for the w32/w64/ppc codecs packages, >> wich choose the good codec package depending on your cpu kind. It should >> be possible to add a bigger list of package in this metapackage, I guess. >> >> Toine >> >> > > Please don't top-post. :) > > I wanna keep as many things in the repo as we can. So we'll look to the > official repos 1st. > > -Cory \m/ > > > Ok. But think that we already have alsa-firmware packages in Medibuntu. And this is a well maintained and used repository: there is libdvdcss, some restricted codecs, etc... It means users watching dvds on Ubuntu are aware of the Medibuntu Project. Maybe we could just add the medibuntu repository to the checkbox list in Synaptic, for Ubuntu Studio ?? then, considering it as an second kind of "restricted" repository, any user who wants to install all codecs, can do it more easy. Toine -- 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: Codec metapackages?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Cory K. a écrit : > >> Luis de Bethencourt wrote: >> >>> On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 2:42 PM, Cory K. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> I'm wondering if we should go through the trouble of creating to metapackages for A/V codecs? The obvious free and nonfree. They would include any audio *and* video codec that fits into either category. "Free" could ship on the disks. Thoughts? -Cory \m/ >>> Codecs are in a legal void I am not very clear about. I would need >>> somebody to clarify me how does Ubuntu and Canonical deal with sharing >>> codecs that don't explicitely permit this in their license uses. Maybe >>> having a metapackage of so in an official project as Ubuntu Studio is >>> a lawyer no no. >>> >>> Luis >>> >> I shoulda mentioned this. Maybe just split the 2 based on archive. >> free=Universe, nonfree=Multiverse. That way, we should be clear. And the >> lists that actually make up the metas is up for debate. I'm more just >> wondering about the validity of the idea. >> >> -Cory \m/ >> > > Maybe this should be a package we can propose to the Medibuntu project. > > Thay already have a metapackage for the w32/w64/ppc codecs packages, > wich choose the good codec package depending on your cpu kind. It should > be possible to add a bigger list of package in this metapackage, I guess. > > Toine > Please don't top-post. :) I wanna keep as many things in the repo as we can. So we'll look to the official repos 1st. -Cory \m/ -- 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: Codec metapackages?
On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 3:54 PM, Cory K. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Luis de Bethencourt wrote: >> On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 2:42 PM, Cory K. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>> I'm wondering if we should go through the trouble of creating to >>> metapackages for A/V codecs? The obvious free and nonfree. >>> >>> They would include any audio *and* video codec that fits into either >>> category. "Free" could ship on the disks. >>> >>> Thoughts? >>> >>> -Cory \m/ >>> >> >> Codecs are in a legal void I am not very clear about. I would need >> somebody to clarify me how does Ubuntu and Canonical deal with sharing >> codecs that don't explicitely permit this in their license uses. Maybe >> having a metapackage of so in an official project as Ubuntu Studio is >> a lawyer no no. >> >> Luis > > I shoulda mentioned this. Maybe just split the 2 based on archive. > free=Universe, nonfree=Multiverse. That way, we should be clear. And the > lists that actually make up the metas is up for debate. I'm more just > wondering about the validity of the idea. > > -Cory \m/ I havent said it is invalid, I'm discussing and asking about what I don't know. How many free codecs are there? The number is sadly very small compared to the encumbered and propietary license ones. How does Canonical legally give mp3 and mpeg decoders? Luis > > -- > 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 > -- Luis de Bethencourt Guimerá luisbg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> GPG: B0ED1326 -- 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: Codec metapackages?
Maybe this should be a package we can propose to the Medibuntu project. Thay already have a metapackage for the w32/w64/ppc codecs packages, wich choose the good codec package depending on your cpu kind. It should be possible to add a bigger list of package in this metapackage, I guess. Toine Cory K. a écrit : > Luis de Bethencourt wrote: > >> On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 2:42 PM, Cory K. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> >>> I'm wondering if we should go through the trouble of creating to >>> metapackages for A/V codecs? The obvious free and nonfree. >>> >>> They would include any audio *and* video codec that fits into either >>> category. "Free" could ship on the disks. >>> >>> Thoughts? >>> >>> -Cory \m/ >>> >>> >> Codecs are in a legal void I am not very clear about. I would need >> somebody to clarify me how does Ubuntu and Canonical deal with sharing >> codecs that don't explicitely permit this in their license uses. Maybe >> having a metapackage of so in an official project as Ubuntu Studio is >> a lawyer no no. >> >> Luis >> > > I shoulda mentioned this. Maybe just split the 2 based on archive. > free=Universe, nonfree=Multiverse. That way, we should be clear. And the > lists that actually make up the metas is up for debate. I'm more just > wondering about the validity of the idea. > > -Cory \m/ > > -- 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: Codec metapackages?
Luis de Bethencourt wrote: > On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 2:42 PM, Cory K. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> I'm wondering if we should go through the trouble of creating to >> metapackages for A/V codecs? The obvious free and nonfree. >> >> They would include any audio *and* video codec that fits into either >> category. "Free" could ship on the disks. >> >> Thoughts? >> >> -Cory \m/ >> > > Codecs are in a legal void I am not very clear about. I would need > somebody to clarify me how does Ubuntu and Canonical deal with sharing > codecs that don't explicitely permit this in their license uses. Maybe > having a metapackage of so in an official project as Ubuntu Studio is > a lawyer no no. > > Luis I shoulda mentioned this. Maybe just split the 2 based on archive. free=Universe, nonfree=Multiverse. That way, we should be clear. And the lists that actually make up the metas is up for debate. I'm more just wondering about the validity of the idea. -Cory \m/ -- 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: Codec metapackages?
On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 2:42 PM, Cory K. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm wondering if we should go through the trouble of creating to > metapackages for A/V codecs? The obvious free and nonfree. > > They would include any audio *and* video codec that fits into either > category. "Free" could ship on the disks. > > Thoughts? > > -Cory \m/ Codecs are in a legal void I am not very clear about. I would need somebody to clarify me how does Ubuntu and Canonical deal with sharing codecs that don't explicitely permit this in their license uses. Maybe having a metapackage of so in an official project as Ubuntu Studio is a lawyer no no. Luis > > -- > 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 > -- Luis de Bethencourt Guimerá luisbg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> GPG: B0ED1326 -- 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: NtEd - A new musical score editor for Linux
Toby Smithe wrote: > On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 2:16 PM, Cory K. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> We need to keep an eye on this. >> >> NtEd - http://vsr.informatik.tu-chemnitz.de/staff/jan/nted/nted.xhtml >> > > Hi Cory, > > I've looked at this before - a while ago - and decided it was too > buggy to be worth packaging. Neither that page nor the sources do not > provide a changelog, so whether it's picked up more recently, I do not > know. mScore is definitely much more advanced at this stage, but you > are right that it's something we should keep on our radar. > Thanx Toby for the informative response. (and sorry for my late one) We'll keep an eye on this then. -Cory \m/ -- 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: next meeting: topics? date?
Luis de Bethencourt wrote: > Next meeting is coming soon. > > Date: Tomorrow Sunday? (6/7/08) > Next Saturday? (12/7/08) > > Any topics people want to talk about? > > (note of the previous one: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuStudio/IntrepidGoals > ) > > Luis > As always, I'm free for whenever. Topics I can think of: * Openness of our systems/resources. * Moving the channels to Ubuntu IRC counsel control. * Package status. -Cory \m/ -- 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
Codec metapackages?
I'm wondering if we should go through the trouble of creating to metapackages for A/V codecs? The obvious free and nonfree. They would include any audio *and* video codec that fits into either category. "Free" could ship on the disks. Thoughts? -Cory \m/ -- 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
Ubuntu Studio CDImage Daily Report for 20080707
Generated: Mon Jul 7 05:27:35 UTC 2008 âââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââ First, uninstallable packages: ⢠fluidsynth-dssi 0.9.1-3ubuntu2 produces uninstallable binaries: â¡ fluidsynth-dssi (amd64 i386) ⢠hexter 0.6.1-2ubuntu2 produces uninstallable binaries: â¡ hexter (amd64 i386) ⢠linux-meta 2.6.24.16.18 produces uninstallable binaries: â¡ linux-image-rt (amd64 i386) â¡ linux-restricted-modules-rt (amd64 i386) â¡ linux-rt (amd64 i386) ⢠linux-restricted-modules-2.6.24 2.6.24.12-16.34 produces uninstallable binaries: â¡ linux-restricted-modules-2.6.24-16-rt (amd64 i386) ⢠linux-ubuntu-modules-2.6.24 2.6.24-16.23 produces uninstallable binaries: â¡ linux-ubuntu-modules-2.6.24-16-rt (amd64 i386) ⢠ubuntustudio-meta 0.28 produces uninstallable binaries: â¡ ubuntustudio-audio (amd64 i386) â¡ ubuntustudio-audio-plugins (amd64 i386) Totals by arch: ⢠i386:9 ⢠amd64:9 (there were 18 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
