Re: [ubuntu-studio-devel] Packages up for removal, unless someone wants to maintain them
On Thu, 10 Sep 2015 01:14:40 +0200, Filipe Coelho wrote: >Correct. >There's some alternatives for SFZ file handling I can later implement >if this becomes a very desired feature. My apologies, I didn't see that mails followed. It's not the point to provide an alternative to linuxsampler, since linuxsampler is relatively good FLOSS Linux audio software and it _must_ be provided by Ubuntu Studio. Ubuntu Studio provides Ardour. Upstream claims not to support if phone home is disabled, not to support if you don't pay for it. This is ok for me, however, the only crime of linuxsampler is, to enforce that their software is for free as in beer software usage only, unless you ask to get a permission. https://www.linuxsampler.org/faq.html#commercial_products We also provide GPLed software from a developer who pressured other developers, when they forked his GPLed software for FLOSS purpose, as it's allowed by the GPL. Fons does not want that people "misuse" his code by adding features, he is not willing to add. Take a look at the LAD archive. At next take a look at who are Debian multimedia maintainers or belong to the Ubuntu Studio crew and in what projects they are involved ;). I'm just kidding, there's no conspiracy (but some really contribute to Ardour and not to Linuxsampler), anyway, I guess my point of view should be understandable. Linuxsampler doesn't anything evil, but is excluded for no good reason. Regards, Ralf -- 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: [ubuntu-studio-devel] Packages up for removal, unless someone wants to maintain them
On 10-09-2015 08:20, Ralf Mardorf wrote: On Wed, 9 Sep 2015 14:46:17 -0700 (PDT), Len Ovens wrote: make features Be careful with features, https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/carla-git/. Carla depends on linuxsampler, I want to point out that it's an *optional* dependency. Carla will build and work fine without it, it's just that it won't have GIG and SFZ file support. Again, it's *optional*. I think it's better to package Carla with as many features as possible right now. When the day comes that linuxsampler is re-added in Debian then we enable it in Carla too. -- 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: [ubuntu-studio-devel] Packages up for removal, unless someone wants to maintain them
On Thu, 10 Sep 2015 10:54:24 +0200, I wrote: >LOSS A typo, it should read FLOSS :D. -- 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: [ubuntu-studio-devel] Packages up for removal, unless someone wants to maintain them
On Thu, 10 Sep 2015 09:23:15 +0200, Filipe Coelho wrote: >Again, it's *optional*. That's not the correct definition of an "optional dependency". You can build without linuxsampler and then linuxsampler is neither an optional nor a hard dependency. It is a build time option, to drop features, but it's not intended by upstream to drop linuxsampler, it's just provided to do it. An optional dependency is a dependency that is add to the build and the user decides, if this dependency will be installed or not. If you build without it, then don't name it "optional dependency". You simply drop a feature. There is no sane reason to not provide linuxsampler. Assumed the argument should be the customised GPL, then consider my arguments about the kind of customisation and about the policy of other developers who's software is provided. To exclude linuxsampler from a distro regarding the customised GPL is narrow minded interpretation of policies and licenses. Let's have some fun with Godwin: We must do it, it was the law! What about good sense? Even laws of modern Western civilisations are flexible. Ubuntu Studio can't be as flexible as a modern Western civilisation? I posted the link to the linuxsampler license explanation. They fulfil the GPL more than e.g. Fons does. I've got no problem with Fons will and it's good that his software is included (I'm using it), but it's despotism to exclude linuxsampler, since the customised GPL is closer to the spirit of the GPL, then the GPL with pressure from Fons is. Linux sampler is closer to the spirit of FLOSS, then support restriction from Paul are, not to mention that he spread lies about other community members, at least about me :D. Do you apply double standards? The one-to-one words of the GPL count more than to be closer to the original spirit? It does count more than common CoCs? This is narrow minded, this is despotism. What is your argument against including linuxsampler to the repositories? Assumed it should be the customised GPL, than why do you accept software of people who use the GPL word by word, but anyway have a strange attitude? Regards, Ralf -- 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: [ubuntu-studio-devel] Packages up for removal, unless someone wants to maintain them
On 10-09-2015 10:18, Ralf Mardorf wrote: What is your argument against including linuxsampler to the repositories? Assumed it should be the customised GPL, than why do you accept software of people who use the GPL word by word, but anyway have a strange attitude? Is this directed towards me? I have nothing against linuxsampler, but the fact is that currently it's not packaged in debian while years ago it was. So someone purposefully removed it from the archives. Those are the facts. Anyway, regarding packaging Carla, we should not have to wait for linuxsampler to be packaged first. It's not a required dependency, you can build just fine without it. -- 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: [ubuntu-studio-devel] Packages up for removal, unless someone wants to maintain them
On Thu, 10 Sep 2015, Ralf Mardorf wrote: At next take a look at who are Debian multimedia maintainers or belong to the Ubuntu Studio crew and in what projects they are involved ;). I'm just kidding, there's no conspiracy (but some really contribute to Ardour and not to Linuxsampler), anyway, I guess my point of view should be understandable. Linuxsampler doesn't anything evil, but is excluded for no good reason. No problem... DSP code is beyond me.. so I am not doing anything with LS. I don't think there is anyone here that is stone faced against LS, or fully understands debian's stance against it. It just is. The LS licence is worded in such a way as to achieve the opposite to it's intent. Someone using it in comercial hardware would hide the fact, rather than advertising it. Ardour is GPL, yet MB and Waves are using it comercially _and_ putting money back into it. -- Len Ovens www.ovenwerks.net -- 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: [ubuntu-studio-devel] Packages up for removal, unless someone wants to maintain them
On 09/09/2015 11:46 PM, Len Ovens wrote: > Just as a side point, there seems to be a feeling in the debian > packaging tools that waf should not be used rather than just fixing the > packaging tools to work with it. Yes - waf is a pain for Debian. https://wiki.debian.org/UpstreamGuide#waf & further links from there. The problem is that there is a "binary blob" that needs to be unpacked from the source tarball because it is not "free" with respect to the Debian Free Software Guidelines. That doesn't stop waf being used in Debian, but it probably discourages developers from writing a debhelper wrapper. So, we just have to do it manually. -- 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: [ubuntu-studio-devel] Packages up for removal, unless someone wants to maintain them
On 09-09-2015 23:46, Len Ovens wrote: On Wed, 9 Sep 2015, Ross Gammon wrote: On 08/31/2015 11:02 PM, Len Ovens wrote: On Fri, 28 Aug 2015, Ross Gammon wrote: I was just looking at a couple of bugs against zynjacku, and it turns out that this package was removed from Debian a while ago because it is buggy and abandoned upstream zynjacku can be replaced with lv2rack and/or jalv. I would also suggest we package Carla for debian. KXStudio's binary tarball already just I have submitted a Request For Package (RFP) bug for Carla: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=798490 My backlog of things to package is quite long now, but if no-one beats me to it I will eventually do it myself. It is less easy than it looks. oh hi there! Nice to see someone interested on packaging Carla. Note that I recommend going with the latest beta release. If this is really going into Debian I can certainly try to push a little harder for a new beta or possibly RC release. The rules file needs tweaking to get it to work. There is no ./configure to run, but at least while figuring things out it needs to be built as: make features make sudo make install make features is not really needed, but as you said it helps figuring out what's missing. Everything in Carla (2.x series) is optional, even the frontend. But you most likely want the frontend. Also another thing to note is that I recommend building against Qt4 and not Qt5, as that allows to have the carla-vst plugin. (Qt5 is missing the X11 embed classes). As to what needs to be in a packaged Carla: ... $ make features ---> Engine drivers: JACK: YES ALSA: YES PulseAudio: YES Jack for sure, but it is not hard to have the other two.. JACK will always be on, Carla doesn't use libjack-dev but a "weakjack" like system that autodetects wherever JACK is available and what features it provides. ALSA and PulseAudio, well why not. For them the final dependencies will only be libasound2 and libpulse0, which all desktop systems have anyway. ---> Plugin formats: Internal: YES LADSPA: YES DSSI: YES LV2: YES VST: YES Internal is not "required" and not having it may leave a smaller package/binary Those are always on ;) In Carla 2.x there's also VST3 and AU but those don't work in Linux anyway. ---> LV2 UI toolkit support: ExternalUI: YES (direct) GtkUI: YES (bridge) Gtk3UI: NO [Gtk3 missing] Qt4UI: YES (direct+bridge) Qt5UI: NO [Qt5 missing] X11UI: YES (direct+bridge) It is suggested not to use qt5 at this time. gtk3 missing has not kept any of my plugins from from working. You *should* have all possible toolkits enabled. Those are not linked to the main Carla library but use external compiled tools, so there's no possiblity of conflicts. By having those enabled it will make Carla able to load qt5 or gtk3 LV2 UIs wherever they arrive. It also helps plugin devs to test their plugins, as no other host supports those. (Qtractor built with qt5 can load qt5 plugins, but that one is not recommended) ---> Sample formats: GIG: NO [LinuxSampler missing] SF2: YES SFZ: NO [LinuxSampler missing] SF2: just means fluid synth is there I think. Correct. There's some alternatives for SFZ file handling I can later implement if this becomes a very desired feature. ---> Internal plugins: AudioFile: YES (without ffmpeg) [ffmpeg/libav missing or too new] MidiFile:YES DISTRHO: YES ZynAddSubFX: NO [fftw-3, mxml or zlib missing] The ZynAddSubFX plugin that Studio ships (in the Ubuntu repos) works just fine if the internal plugin does not. These are different in 2.x now. Also it might be useful to actually build the zyn internal plugin, because that plugin (along with carla itself and the other internals) will be exported as LV2 plugins. This way you can get zynaddsubfx working as an LV2 plugin. :) Thanks again. If you have any questions about Carla let me know. -- 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: [ubuntu-studio-devel] Packages up for removal, unless someone wants to maintain them
On Thu, 10 Sep 2015, Filipe Coelho wrote: oh hi there! Nice to see someone interested on packaging Carla. I think it is a good addition to Linux Audio. Fills a place that will soon be empty. Note that I recommend going with the latest beta release. If this is really going into Debian I can certainly try to push a little harder for a new beta or possibly RC release. I think I DL both, but I will check. Everything in Carla (2.x series) is optional, even the frontend. But you most likely want the frontend. Yes, I want as much as possible actually. However, It would be better to leave things out and have the program than expect everything and have nothing. ALSA and PulseAudio, well why not. For them the final dependencies will only be libasound2 and libpulse0, which all desktop systems have anyway. All Ubuntu for sure. I think it is pretty standard in debian too. ---> LV2 UI toolkit support: ExternalUI: YES (direct) GtkUI: YES (bridge) Gtk3UI: NO [Gtk3 missing] Qt4UI: YES (direct+bridge) Qt5UI: NO [Qt5 missing] X11UI: YES (direct+bridge) You *should* have all possible toolkits enabled. Those are not linked to the main Carla library but use external compiled tools, so there's no possiblity of conflicts. I'll try that. -- Len Ovens www.ovenwerks.net -- 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: [ubuntu-studio-devel] Packages up for removal, unless someone wants to maintain them
On 08/31/2015 11:02 PM, Len Ovens wrote: > On Fri, 28 Aug 2015, Ross Gammon wrote: > >> I was just looking at a couple of bugs against zynjacku, and it turns >> out that this package was removed from Debian a while ago because it is >> buggy and abandoned upstream > > zynjacku can be replaced with lv2rack and/or jalv. I would also suggest > we package Carla for debian. KXStudio's binary tarball already just > works with Studio as is and gives a bainary rack that would replace > jackrack and or zinjacku with ease. It also gives an LV2 plugin that > would allow dssi instruments to be used with Ardour (Ardour does not > load DSSI plugins natively) It also allows different plugins to be used > in Applications that will take Linux vst plugs but not lv2 (LMMS?) > > Opps lv2rack is a part of the zynjacku package. > > -- > Len Ovens > www.ovenwerks.net > > I have submitted a Request For Package (RFP) bug for Carla: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=798490 My backlog of things to package is quite long now, but if no-one beats me to it I will eventually do it myself. If there are any other packages that we should have in Ubuntu Studio, then please submit a bug: https://www.debian.org/devel/wnpp/ If you cc this list I will add it to the multimedia blends website for more exposure: http://blends.debian.org/multimedia/tasks/index Regards, Ross -- 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: [ubuntu-studio-devel] Packages up for removal, unless someone wants to maintain them
On Fri, 28 Aug 2015, Ross Gammon wrote: I was just looking at a couple of bugs against zynjacku, and it turns out that this package was removed from Debian a while ago because it is buggy and abandoned upstream zynjacku can be replaced with lv2rack and/or jalv. I would also suggest we package Carla for debian. KXStudio's binary tarball already just works with Studio as is and gives a bainary rack that would replace jackrack and or zinjacku with ease. It also gives an LV2 plugin that would allow dssi instruments to be used with Ardour (Ardour does not load DSSI plugins natively) It also allows different plugins to be used in Applications that will take Linux vst plugs but not lv2 (LMMS?) Opps lv2rack is a part of the zynjacku package. -- Len Ovens www.ovenwerks.net -- 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: [ubuntu-studio-devel] Packages up for removal, unless someone wants to maintain them
On 08/24/2015 10:22 AM, Kaj Ailomaa wrote: It seems that jack-rack runs ok. I could start it up and load some effects. No crashes for me yet, anyway. Considering that there is no alternative in the Ubuntu repos, I think we should keep it at least for wily. So, I will ask for that to be kept. I was just looking at a couple of bugs against zynjacku, and it turns out that this package was removed from Debian a while ago because it is buggy and abandoned upstream (https://packages.qa.debian.org/z/zynjacku/news/20131101T115337Z.html). The source code is not even where it used to be. Is this another package we should consider removing from Ubuntu? Ross -- 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: [ubuntu-studio-devel] Packages up for removal, unless someone wants to maintain them
On Fri, 28 Aug 2015, Ross Gammon wrote: On 08/24/2015 10:22 AM, Kaj Ailomaa wrote: It seems that jack-rack runs ok. I could start it up and load some effects. No crashes for me yet, anyway. Considering that there is no alternative in the Ubuntu repos, I think we should keep it at least for wily. So, I will ask for that to be kept. I was just looking at a couple of bugs against zynjacku, and it turns out that this package was removed from Debian a while ago because it is buggy and abandoned upstream (https://packages.qa.debian.org/z/zynjacku/news/20131101T115337Z.html). The source code is not even where it used to be. Is this another package we should consider removing from Ubuntu? Funny, zynjacku is the same as jackrack, but for lv2. That is, zynjacku provides the same function as jackrack. zynjacku for lv2 and jackrack for ladspa. The problem with lv2 applications/plugins is that the lv2 standard has changed. If this means zynjacku just doesn't work, it may be time to be rid of it. It has become easy to build an LV2 as both a plugin and as a standalone jack client. zynjacku should be tested. -- Len Ovens www.ovenwerks.net -- 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: [ubuntu-studio-devel] Packages up for removal, unless someone wants to maintain them
It seems that jack-rack runs ok. I could start it up and load some effects. No crashes for me yet, anyway. Considering that there is no alternative in the Ubuntu repos, I think we should keep it at least for wily. So, I will ask for that to be kept. -- 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: [ubuntu-studio-devel] Packages up for removal, unless someone wants to maintain them
On Sat, 22 Aug 2015 19:38:15 +0200, Kaj Ailomaa wrote: As long as it is functional, it seems there is some reason to keep it. But, I can't try it until Monday, the earliest. If we keep it, we become maintainers and it will only exist in Ubuntu. That leaves us more time to figure out another solution. A poll might help to decide if the package is needed. http://lists.linuxaudio.org/pipermail/linux-audio-user/2015-August/102326.html For Arch Linux it's available by the Arch user repository, but not by the official repositories. Fedora: https://apps.fedoraproject.org/packages/jack-rack -- 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: [ubuntu-studio-devel] Packages up for removal, unless someone wants to maintain them
On Sat, 22 Aug 2015, Kaj Ailomaa wrote: phat is not included in our seeds. But, it's in the meta package called multimedia-devel. But, that should be safe to remove. That only leaves jack-rack. How badly do we want to keep it? Is there a utility like dssi-host-jack for ladspa plugins to replace it? There are some plugin authors (some of the best I might add) that will only ever produce their plugins as ladspa and are not interested in making LV2 versions. I think sox can do this... but anything with sox is not for newbys... ECAsound could do this too, but we don't include it as we are doing GUI stuff so no Nama DAW. jack-rack is the only application for putting to together a standalone set of Ladspa plugins... but the fact that it is not maintained says something. Almost anyone who uses plugins uses them inside something else anyway. Guitarix may be able to replace this. How easy is it to bypass the amp emulation and just use the effects rack? Rakarrack may work for some people too, but the last update for that was 2010... I expect it will vanish soon as well. Guitarix looks like the best fit to replace jack-rack. Though not (by it's name) what someone just looking for an effects box is likely to look for. -- Len Ovens www.ovenwerks.net -- 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: [ubuntu-studio-devel] Packages up for removal, unless someone wants to maintain them
On Sat, Aug 22, 2015, at 07:23 PM, Len Ovens wrote: On Sat, 22 Aug 2015, Kaj Ailomaa wrote: phat is not included in our seeds. But, it's in the meta package called multimedia-devel. But, that should be safe to remove. That only leaves jack-rack. How badly do we want to keep it? Is there a utility like dssi-host-jack for ladspa plugins to replace it? There are some plugin authors (some of the best I might add) that will only ever produce their plugins as ladspa and are not interested in making LV2 versions. I think sox can do this... but anything with sox is not for newbys... ECAsound could do this too, but we don't include it as we are doing GUI stuff so no Nama DAW. jack-rack is the only application for putting to together a standalone set of Ladspa plugins... but the fact that it is not maintained says something. Almost anyone who uses plugins uses them inside something else anyway. As long as it is functional, it seems there is some reason to keep it. But, I can't try it until Monday, the earliest. If we keep it, we become maintainers and it will only exist in Ubuntu. That leaves us more time to figure out another solution. -- 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: [ubuntu-studio-devel] Packages up for removal, unless someone wants to maintain them
phat is not included in our seeds. But, it's in the meta package called multimedia-devel. But, that should be safe to remove. That only leaves jack-rack. How badly do we want to keep it? -- 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: [ubuntu-studio-devel] Packages up for removal, unless someone wants to maintain them
On Fri, Aug 21, 2015, at 12:04 PM, Ralf Mardorf wrote: On Fri, 21 Aug 2015 10:25:36 +0200, Kaj Ailomaa wrote: jack-rack This is a useful package and should be provided. Is someone willing to maintain it? And, if so, please look up why Debian is not doing it anymore. -- 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: [ubuntu-studio-devel] Packages up for removal, unless someone wants to maintain them
On Fri, 21 Aug 2015, Kaj Ailomaa wrote: It seems there are a few packages that have been removed from Debian and will be removed from Ubuntu as well, unless someone commits to maintaining them. The packages in question are: jack-rack lv2fil x42's collection now has an expansion called fil4.lv2 both of these are based on the fil4 code in the ladspa plugin. eq10q is also now much more mature and can fill this void. specimen There is a fork of this petri-foo that replaces this. phat If anyone feels any of those should be kept, please let us know. -- Len Ovens www.ovenwerks.net -- 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: [ubuntu-studio-devel] Packages up for removal, unless someone wants to maintain them
On Fri, Aug 21, 2015, at 03:07 PM, Len Ovens wrote: On Fri, 21 Aug 2015, Kaj Ailomaa wrote: specimen There is a fork of this petri-foo that replaces this. Replaced! -- 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-devel] Packages up for removal, unless someone wants to maintain them
It seems there are a few packages that have been removed from Debian and will be removed from Ubuntu as well, unless someone commits to maintaining them. The packages in question are: jack-rack lv2fil specimen phat If anyone feels any of those should be kept, please let us know. -- 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: [ubuntu-studio-devel] Packages up for removal, unless someone wants to maintain them
On Fri, 21 Aug 2015 10:25:36 +0200, Kaj Ailomaa wrote: jack-rack This is a useful package and should be provided. lv2fil Keep the package that provides Fons' 4-band parametric EQ, all other EQs are anyway more or less useless. What filter is provided by this package? However, even the more or less useless filters are much used by many people. specimen Sounds interesting, but I never used it. phat What is this? Regarding a package search there is some photo thingy with a similar name. If anyone feels any of those should be kept, please let us know. Resume: Keep jack-rack. I like jack-rack and consider that several people might need it for old productions, even if they nowadays shouldn't use it anymore. Btw. what could be used as a replacement? If lv2fil shouldn't provide a good EQ, but a EQ that didn't crash, then some people likely used it and need it for old productions. Did anybody ever use specimen and/or phat? If not, then drop those packages. 0,02€ -- 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
