Re: [ubuntu-studio-devel] Checking in, a little vision, Calf & LMMS

[Erich Eickmeyer]

Hi Set,

On Thu, 2019-01-03 at 08:41 +, Set Sakrecoer wrote:
> Yes, indeed, maybe that would be the last source of the old ones. :)
> It would could constantly ce back when we had design
> contests/proposition being submitted and I have never been too sure
> we're they came from.
> 
> The corrected ones are in the "current-standard" branch in
> ~ubuntustudio-art on launchpad.
> 
> https://bazaar.launchpad.net/~ubuntustudio-art/ubuntustudio-artwork/current-standard/files
> -- 
> Set Sakrecoer
> 

I totally just got done converting all of the -artwork repos to git,
mostly for futureproofing's sake.

For my next trick, I'll upgrade the COF's on the wiki I previously
linked to the new ones that you had linked (now in a git repo).

Not sure we'll do a wallpaper contest this time around, since I just
got done moving the pre-18.10 wallpapers to -legacy and -xenial (the
ubuntustudio-wallpapers .deb file was getting rather large!). Seems
like something that would be good to do again for 19.10.

I think we're getting into a decent rhythm of development as Len and I
have been working on making -installer the gateway to the Ubuntu Studio
Bolt-On. Ubuntu Studio as a Toolkit (USaaT), as it were.

Erich


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- 
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] LMMS & Calf: The Ongoing Saga

[Ross Gammon]

On 2/2/19 11:23 PM, Len Ovens wrote:
> On Sat, 2 Feb 2019, Ross Gammon wrote:
> 
>> Hi All,
>>
>> The problem with the calf plugin is fixed in Debian! lmms now only
>> recommends calf-ladspa or whatever it was called, instead of Depending
>> on it, which was wrong!
> 
> So, does LMMS actually work without the calf LV1 package? As in can the
> user do what they expect to be able to do?
>  If the user has a project that includes the calf plugins, I would
> assume that project will now be broken and to fix it they will want to
> install the calf LV1 package, What packages will have to be removed (or
> will be autoremoved) for that package to install and what other
> Applications will be broken by this?
> 
> 
> -- 
> Len Ovens
> www.ovenwerks.net
> 
> 

As far as I know, you can use lmms without any plugins (not tested).
That would be the normal setup for any application. There was no
argument suggesting otherwise on the Debian bugs.

If they need calf-ladspa, then when they install it they will have to
remove calf-plugins, because the two packages conflict with each other.
We might need to blacklist calf-ladspa in our seeds.

I have not had time to investigate, but I read in one thread that
upstream had already renamed their internal copy of calf to veal. That
would probably make the problem of other tools (e.g. ardour) picking up
the old calf plugin and crashing go away. In any case the long term
solution should be to drop the "public" plugin package and keep it
private to lmms. But we needed a fast fix because Debian is going into a
release freeze.

Ross



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- 
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] LMMS & Calf: The Ongoing Saga

[Len Ovens]

On Sat, 2 Feb 2019, Ross Gammon wrote:


Hi All,

The problem with the calf plugin is fixed in Debian! lmms now only
recommends calf-ladspa or whatever it was called, instead of Depending
on it, which was wrong!


So, does LMMS actually work without the calf LV1 package? As in can the 
user do what they expect to be able to do?
 If the user has a project that includes the calf plugins, I would assume 
that project will now be broken and to fix it they will want to install 
the calf LV1 package, What packages will have to be removed (or will be 
autoremoved) for that package to install and what other Applications will 
be broken by this?



--
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] LMMS & Calf: The Ongoing Saga

[Erich Eickmeyer]

Hi Ross,

On 2/2/2019 1:56 AM, Ross Gammon wrote:
> [snip] The temporary fix is simple (to stop the LiveCD failure).
> Revert the seeds change and exclude lmms. 
Probably the best route for the moment. Honestly, I'm inclined to agree
with Len on this one as lmms is running behind, technologically
speaking. There have to be better solutions for its use case. Anyone who
has an idea on this, feel free to chime-in.
> Another possibility, is to upload an Ubuntu version changing the
> Depends to Recommends. But then I am worried we will run into GCCv8
> build failures on amd64 & i386 which is the other fix included in the
> latest Debian version. 
I agree, we should do everything we can to stick to the Debian version
since it has the necessary fixes.
> Hopefully I will have a chance to dig further this weekend, but I
> can't guarantee it. 
I totally get that. Had an interesting latter-half of the week myself.
My truck's tires all needed to be changed, but became more critical with
a rather large bulge in one of them suggesting imminent blow-out.
Additionally, I like to reserve my weekends to being with my family.
> Ross PS: I will do the temporary fix now though. That is easy.
Perfect. I've already announced that there's a possibility that lmms
won't be included in 19.04. Seems to have been met with the proverbial
shrug by most of the community.

Erich



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- 
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] LMMS & Calf: The Ongoing Saga

[Ross Gammon]

Hi All,

The problem with the calf plugin is fixed in Debian! lmms now only
recommends calf-ladspa or whatever it was called, instead of Depending
on it, which was wrong!

The problem now, is that even though the new Debian version of lmms
builds fine on all architectures, it does not build on ppc64el in
Ubuntu. Therefore this latest version is stuck in -proposed.

I have not had time to understand what the difference in build
environment is between Debian and Ubuntu, or whether it is because the
build dependencies are different.

I have not had time to contact upstream about it either. It will not be
a fun discussion anyway, as we are several versions behind upstream, and
they are up to v1.2.0-rc7, so are probably working on getting the final
release ready.

The temporary fix is simple (to stop the LiveCD failure). Revert the
seeds change and exclude lmms.

Another possibility, is to upload an Ubuntu version changing the Depends
to Recommends. But then I am worried we will run into GCCv8 build
failures on amd64 & i386 which is the other fix included in the latest
Debian version.

Hopefully I will have a chance to dig further this weekend, but I can't
guarantee it.

Ross
PS: I will do the temporary fix now though. That is easy.

On 2/1/19 6:59 AM, Erich Eickmeyer wrote:
> Because that’s not how it works. If it’s in upstream Debian, it is in
> Ubuntu. Remember, Ubuntu Studio is not a separate distribution from
> Ubuntu. Therefore, when a package is in Debian, we work with that.
> 
>  
> 
> *From:* ubuntu-studio-devel
>  on behalf of Jonathan
> Aquilina 
> *Sent:* Thursday, January 31, 2019 9:56 PM
> *To:* Ubuntu Studio Development
> *Subject:* Re: [ubuntu-studio-devel] LMMS & Calf: The Ongoing Saga
>  
> 
> What about not pulling the package from Debian due to this and compiling
> it specifically for US?
> 
>  
> 
> *From:*ubuntu-studio-devel
>  *On Behalf Of *Erich
> Eickmeyer
> *Sent:* 01 February 2019 06:56
> *To:* Ubuntu Studio Development 
> *Subject:* Re: [ubuntu-studio-devel] LMMS & Calf: The Ongoing Saga
> 
>  
> 
> Yes. The Calf developers have and were met with the response of a brick
> wall. Ross is working on it.
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> *From:*ubuntu-studio-devel  <mailto:ubuntu-studio-devel-boun...@lists.ubuntu.com>> on behalf of
> Jonathan Aquilina mailto:jaquil...@eagleeyet.net>>
> *Sent:* Thursday, January 31, 2019 9:54 PM
> *To:* Ubuntu Studio Development
> *Subject:* Re: [ubuntu-studio-devel] LMMS & Calf: The Ongoing Saga
> 
>  
> 
> Has anyone tried to speak to the maintainer to try and ascertain the
> reasoning behind it?
> 
>  
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Jonathan
> 
>  
> 
> *From:*ubuntu-studio-devel  <mailto:ubuntu-studio-devel-boun...@lists.ubuntu.com>> *On Behalf Of
> *Erich Eickmeyer
> *Sent:* 01 February 2019 06:43
> *To:* Ubuntu Studio Development  <mailto:ubuntu-studio-devel@lists.ubuntu.com>>
> *Subject:* Re: [ubuntu-studio-devel] LMMS & Calf: The Ongoing Saga
> 
>  
> 
> LMMS isn’t the problem.  The problem was erroneous packaging by the
> Debian packager.
> 
>  
> 
> The ladspa version of the Calf plugins were never meant to be exposed to
> other applications besides LMMS, but the packager of LMMS in Debian
> decided to expose the ladpsa version to the rest of the system against
> the advice of both the Calf and LMMS developers.
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> Erich
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> ----
> 
> *From:*ubuntu-studio-devel  <mailto:ubuntu-studio-devel-boun...@lists.ubuntu.com>> on behalf of
> Jonathan Aquilina mailto:jaquil...@eagleeyet.net>>
> *Sent:* Thursday, January 31, 2019 9:39 PM
> *To:* Ubuntu Studio Development
> *Subject:* Re: [ubuntu-studio-devel] LMMS & Calf: The Ongoing Saga
> 
>  
> 
> Has anyone even subscribed to the lmms mailing list to discuss this
> there and maybe get it squared away once and for all?
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: ubuntu-studio-devel  <mailto:ubuntu-studio-devel-boun...@lists.ubuntu.com>> On Behalf Of
> er...@ericheickmeyer.com <mailto:er...@ericheickmeyer.com>
> Sent: 01 February 2019 00:49
> To: Ubuntu Studio Development  <mailto:ubuntu-studio-devel@lists.ubuntu.com>>
> Subject: [ubuntu-studio-devel] LMMS & Calf: The Ongoing Saga
> 
> Hi everyone,
> 
> Specifically to Ross: where are we at with this bane-of-our-existence
> conflict (LP: 1810534)? ISO builds are still failing and will probably
> fail until we can get lm

Re: [ubuntu-studio-devel] LMMS & Calf: The Ongoing Saga

[Erich Eickmeyer]

Because that’s not how it works. If it’s in upstream Debian, it is in Ubuntu. 
Remember, Ubuntu Studio is not a separate distribution from Ubuntu. Therefore, 
when a package is in Debian, we work with that.



From: ubuntu-studio-devel  on 
behalf of Jonathan Aquilina 
Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2019 9:56 PM
To: Ubuntu Studio Development
Subject: Re: [ubuntu-studio-devel] LMMS & Calf: The Ongoing Saga

What about not pulling the package from Debian due to this and compiling it 
specifically for US?

From: ubuntu-studio-devel  On 
Behalf Of Erich Eickmeyer
Sent: 01 February 2019 06:56
To: Ubuntu Studio Development 
Subject: Re: [ubuntu-studio-devel] LMMS & Calf: The Ongoing Saga

Yes. The Calf developers have and were met with the response of a brick wall. 
Ross is working on it.



From: ubuntu-studio-devel 
mailto:ubuntu-studio-devel-boun...@lists.ubuntu.com>>
 on behalf of Jonathan Aquilina 
mailto:jaquil...@eagleeyet.net>>
Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2019 9:54 PM
To: Ubuntu Studio Development
Subject: Re: [ubuntu-studio-devel] LMMS & Calf: The Ongoing Saga

Has anyone tried to speak to the maintainer to try and ascertain the reasoning 
behind it?

Regards,
Jonathan

From: ubuntu-studio-devel 
mailto:ubuntu-studio-devel-boun...@lists.ubuntu.com>>
 On Behalf Of Erich Eickmeyer
Sent: 01 February 2019 06:43
To: Ubuntu Studio Development 
mailto:ubuntu-studio-devel@lists.ubuntu.com>>
Subject: Re: [ubuntu-studio-devel] LMMS & Calf: The Ongoing Saga

LMMS isn’t the problem.  The problem was erroneous packaging by the Debian 
packager.

The ladspa version of the Calf plugins were never meant to be exposed to other 
applications besides LMMS, but the packager of LMMS in Debian decided to expose 
the ladpsa version to the rest of the system against the advice of both the 
Calf and LMMS developers.


Erich



From: ubuntu-studio-devel 
mailto:ubuntu-studio-devel-boun...@lists.ubuntu.com>>
 on behalf of Jonathan Aquilina 
mailto:jaquil...@eagleeyet.net>>
Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2019 9:39 PM
To: Ubuntu Studio Development
Subject: Re: [ubuntu-studio-devel] LMMS & Calf: The Ongoing Saga

Has anyone even subscribed to the lmms mailing list to discuss this there and 
maybe get it squared away once and for all?

-Original Message-
From: ubuntu-studio-devel 
mailto:ubuntu-studio-devel-boun...@lists.ubuntu.com>>
 On Behalf Of er...@ericheickmeyer.com<mailto:er...@ericheickmeyer.com>
Sent: 01 February 2019 00:49
To: Ubuntu Studio Development 
mailto:ubuntu-studio-devel@lists.ubuntu.com>>
Subject: [ubuntu-studio-devel] LMMS & Calf: The Ongoing Saga

Hi everyone,

Specifically to Ross: where are we at with this bane-of-our-existence conflict 
(LP: 1810534)? ISO builds are still failing and will probably fail until we can 
get lmms from Debian to build properly.

So, any more word?

Thanks,
Erich
--
ubuntu-studio-devel mailing list
ubuntu-studio-devel@lists.ubuntu.com<mailto:ubuntu-studio-devel@lists.ubuntu.com>
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: 
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-studio-devel
-- 
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] LMMS & Calf: The Ongoing Saga

[Jonathan Aquilina]

What about not pulling the package from Debian due to this and compiling it 
specifically for US?

From: ubuntu-studio-devel  On 
Behalf Of Erich Eickmeyer
Sent: 01 February 2019 06:56
To: Ubuntu Studio Development 
Subject: Re: [ubuntu-studio-devel] LMMS & Calf: The Ongoing Saga

Yes. The Calf developers have and were met with the response of a brick wall. 
Ross is working on it.



From: ubuntu-studio-devel 
mailto:ubuntu-studio-devel-boun...@lists.ubuntu.com>>
 on behalf of Jonathan Aquilina 
mailto:jaquil...@eagleeyet.net>>
Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2019 9:54 PM
To: Ubuntu Studio Development
Subject: Re: [ubuntu-studio-devel] LMMS & Calf: The Ongoing Saga

Has anyone tried to speak to the maintainer to try and ascertain the reasoning 
behind it?

Regards,
Jonathan

From: ubuntu-studio-devel 
mailto:ubuntu-studio-devel-boun...@lists.ubuntu.com>>
 On Behalf Of Erich Eickmeyer
Sent: 01 February 2019 06:43
To: Ubuntu Studio Development 
mailto:ubuntu-studio-devel@lists.ubuntu.com>>
Subject: Re: [ubuntu-studio-devel] LMMS & Calf: The Ongoing Saga

LMMS isn't the problem.  The problem was erroneous packaging by the Debian 
packager.

The ladspa version of the Calf plugins were never meant to be exposed to other 
applications besides LMMS, but the packager of LMMS in Debian decided to expose 
the ladpsa version to the rest of the system against the advice of both the 
Calf and LMMS developers.


Erich



From: ubuntu-studio-devel 
mailto:ubuntu-studio-devel-boun...@lists.ubuntu.com>>
 on behalf of Jonathan Aquilina 
mailto:jaquil...@eagleeyet.net>>
Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2019 9:39 PM
To: Ubuntu Studio Development
Subject: Re: [ubuntu-studio-devel] LMMS & Calf: The Ongoing Saga

Has anyone even subscribed to the lmms mailing list to discuss this there and 
maybe get it squared away once and for all?

-Original Message-
From: ubuntu-studio-devel 
mailto:ubuntu-studio-devel-boun...@lists.ubuntu.com>>
 On Behalf Of er...@ericheickmeyer.com<mailto:er...@ericheickmeyer.com>
Sent: 01 February 2019 00:49
To: Ubuntu Studio Development 
mailto:ubuntu-studio-devel@lists.ubuntu.com>>
Subject: [ubuntu-studio-devel] LMMS & Calf: The Ongoing Saga

Hi everyone,

Specifically to Ross: where are we at with this bane-of-our-existence conflict 
(LP: 1810534)? ISO builds are still failing and will probably fail until we can 
get lmms from Debian to build properly.

So, any more word?

Thanks,
Erich
--
ubuntu-studio-devel mailing list
ubuntu-studio-devel@lists.ubuntu.com<mailto:ubuntu-studio-devel@lists.ubuntu.com>
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: 
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-studio-devel
-- 
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] LMMS & Calf: The Ongoing Saga

[Erich Eickmeyer]

Yes. The Calf developers have and were met with the response of a brick wall. 
Ross is working on it.



From: ubuntu-studio-devel  on 
behalf of Jonathan Aquilina 
Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2019 9:54 PM
To: Ubuntu Studio Development
Subject: Re: [ubuntu-studio-devel] LMMS & Calf: The Ongoing Saga

Has anyone tried to speak to the maintainer to try and ascertain the reasoning 
behind it?

Regards,
Jonathan

From: ubuntu-studio-devel  On 
Behalf Of Erich Eickmeyer
Sent: 01 February 2019 06:43
To: Ubuntu Studio Development 
Subject: Re: [ubuntu-studio-devel] LMMS & Calf: The Ongoing Saga

LMMS isn’t the problem.  The problem was erroneous packaging by the Debian 
packager.

The ladspa version of the Calf plugins were never meant to be exposed to other 
applications besides LMMS, but the packager of LMMS in Debian decided to expose 
the ladpsa version to the rest of the system against the advice of both the 
Calf and LMMS developers.


Erich



From: ubuntu-studio-devel 
mailto:ubuntu-studio-devel-boun...@lists.ubuntu.com>>
 on behalf of Jonathan Aquilina 
mailto:jaquil...@eagleeyet.net>>
Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2019 9:39 PM
To: Ubuntu Studio Development
Subject: Re: [ubuntu-studio-devel] LMMS & Calf: The Ongoing Saga

Has anyone even subscribed to the lmms mailing list to discuss this there and 
maybe get it squared away once and for all?

-Original Message-
From: ubuntu-studio-devel 
mailto:ubuntu-studio-devel-boun...@lists.ubuntu.com>>
 On Behalf Of er...@ericheickmeyer.com<mailto:er...@ericheickmeyer.com>
Sent: 01 February 2019 00:49
To: Ubuntu Studio Development 
mailto:ubuntu-studio-devel@lists.ubuntu.com>>
Subject: [ubuntu-studio-devel] LMMS & Calf: The Ongoing Saga

Hi everyone,

Specifically to Ross: where are we at with this bane-of-our-existence conflict 
(LP: 1810534)? ISO builds are still failing and will probably fail until we can 
get lmms from Debian to build properly.

So, any more word?

Thanks,
Erich
--
ubuntu-studio-devel mailing list
ubuntu-studio-devel@lists.ubuntu.com<mailto:ubuntu-studio-devel@lists.ubuntu.com>
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: 
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-studio-devel
-- 
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] LMMS & Calf: The Ongoing Saga

[Jonathan Aquilina]

Has anyone tried to speak to the maintainer to try and ascertain the reasoning 
behind it?

Regards,
Jonathan

From: ubuntu-studio-devel  On 
Behalf Of Erich Eickmeyer
Sent: 01 February 2019 06:43
To: Ubuntu Studio Development 
Subject: Re: [ubuntu-studio-devel] LMMS & Calf: The Ongoing Saga

LMMS isn't the problem.  The problem was erroneous packaging by the Debian 
packager.

The ladspa version of the Calf plugins were never meant to be exposed to other 
applications besides LMMS, but the packager of LMMS in Debian decided to expose 
the ladpsa version to the rest of the system against the advice of both the 
Calf and LMMS developers.


Erich



From: ubuntu-studio-devel 
mailto:ubuntu-studio-devel-boun...@lists.ubuntu.com>>
 on behalf of Jonathan Aquilina 
mailto:jaquil...@eagleeyet.net>>
Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2019 9:39 PM
To: Ubuntu Studio Development
Subject: Re: [ubuntu-studio-devel] LMMS & Calf: The Ongoing Saga

Has anyone even subscribed to the lmms mailing list to discuss this there and 
maybe get it squared away once and for all?

-Original Message-
From: ubuntu-studio-devel 
mailto:ubuntu-studio-devel-boun...@lists.ubuntu.com>>
 On Behalf Of er...@ericheickmeyer.com<mailto:er...@ericheickmeyer.com>
Sent: 01 February 2019 00:49
To: Ubuntu Studio Development 
mailto:ubuntu-studio-devel@lists.ubuntu.com>>
Subject: [ubuntu-studio-devel] LMMS & Calf: The Ongoing Saga

Hi everyone,

Specifically to Ross: where are we at with this bane-of-our-existence conflict 
(LP: 1810534)? ISO builds are still failing and will probably fail until we can 
get lmms from Debian to build properly.

So, any more word?

Thanks,
Erich
--
ubuntu-studio-devel mailing list
ubuntu-studio-devel@lists.ubuntu.com<mailto:ubuntu-studio-devel@lists.ubuntu.com>
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: 
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-studio-devel
-- 
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] LMMS & Calf: The Ongoing Saga

[Erich Eickmeyer]

LMMS isn’t the problem.  The problem was erroneous packaging by the Debian 
packager.

The ladspa version of the Calf plugins were never meant to be exposed to other 
applications besides LMMS, but the packager of LMMS in Debian decided to expose 
the ladpsa version to the rest of the system against the advice of both the 
Calf and LMMS developers.


Erich



From: ubuntu-studio-devel  on 
behalf of Jonathan Aquilina 
Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2019 9:39 PM
To: Ubuntu Studio Development
Subject: Re: [ubuntu-studio-devel] LMMS & Calf: The Ongoing Saga

Has anyone even subscribed to the lmms mailing list to discuss this there and 
maybe get it squared away once and for all?

-Original Message-
From: ubuntu-studio-devel  On 
Behalf Of er...@ericheickmeyer.com
Sent: 01 February 2019 00:49
To: Ubuntu Studio Development 
Subject: [ubuntu-studio-devel] LMMS & Calf: The Ongoing Saga

Hi everyone,

Specifically to Ross: where are we at with this bane-of-our-existence conflict 
(LP: 1810534)? ISO builds are still failing and will probably fail until we can 
get lmms from Debian to build properly.

So, any more word?

Thanks,
Erich
--
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 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] LMMS & Calf: The Ongoing Saga

[Jonathan Aquilina]

Has anyone even subscribed to the lmms mailing list to discuss this there and 
maybe get it squared away once and for all?

-Original Message-
From: ubuntu-studio-devel  On 
Behalf Of er...@ericheickmeyer.com
Sent: 01 February 2019 00:49
To: Ubuntu Studio Development 
Subject: [ubuntu-studio-devel] LMMS & Calf: The Ongoing Saga

Hi everyone,

Specifically to Ross: where are we at with this bane-of-our-existence conflict 
(LP: 1810534)? ISO builds are still failing and will probably fail until we can 
get lmms from Debian to build properly.

So, any more word?

Thanks,
Erich
-- 
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] LMMS & Calf: The Ongoing Saga

[Len Ovens]

On Thu, 31 Jan 2019, er...@ericheickmeyer.com wrote:


Specifically to Ross: where are we at with this bane-of-our-existence
conflict (LP: 1810534)? ISO builds are still failing and will probably
fail until we can get lmms from Debian to build properly.


Wait for LMMS to stop using depricated plugins? Then include 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

[ubuntu-studio-devel] LMMS & Calf: The Ongoing Saga

[erich]

Hi everyone,

Specifically to Ross: where are we at with this bane-of-our-existence
conflict (LP: 1810534)? ISO builds are still failing and will probably
fail until we can get lmms from Debian to build properly.

So, any more word?

Thanks,
Erich


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- 
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] Checking in, a little vision, Calf & LMMS

[Thomas Pfundt]

Hi Set,


On Thursday, January 3, 2019 9:41 AM, Set Sakrecoer  
wrote:
> The corrected ones are in the "current-standard" branch
> in ~ubuntustudio-art on launchpad.
>
> https://bazaar.launchpad.net/~ubuntustudio-art/ubuntustudio-artwork/current-standard/files


Thank you, I'll make sure to use those assets for everything.

-- 
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] Checking in, a little vision, Calf & LMMS

[Set Sakrecoer]

On January 3, 2019 3:52:50 AM UTC, Erich Eickmeyer  
wrote:
>
>On 1/2/2019 5:21 PM, Set Sakrecoer wrote:
>> Maybe you have reverted to the old logo and I've just missed out, but
>> on this wiki page there only seem to be the "corrrupt" version of the
>> Ubuntu studio CoF FTR, The graphic lead from Xubuntu (the Nick is
>> escaping my memory right now, sorry) corrected the distorted path
>seen
>> in those available on the wiki page linked above during 16.04 cycle.
>> It's been really difficult to remove the broken logo, so i'm not
>> blaming anyone. I'll show you the latest versions first thing in the
>> morning tomorrow. 
>Thanks, Set! I'll await the correct version.
>I didn't put that CoF on the Wiki, so chances are it's something left
>over from Kaj's time (for all I know). That said, if you have a better
>version (preferably in .svg) then we need to attach it to that page.
>I'd
>be more than happy to do that once I have the correct version. :)
>Erich

Yes, indeed, maybe that would be the last source of the old ones. :) It would 
could constantly ce back when we had design contests/proposition being 
submitted and I have never been too sure we're they came from.

The corrected ones are in the "current-standard" branch in ~ubuntustudio-art on 
launchpad.

https://bazaar.launchpad.net/~ubuntustudio-art/ubuntustudio-artwork/current-standard/files
-- 
Set Sakrecoer

-- 
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] Checking in, a little vision, Calf & LMMS

[Erich Eickmeyer]

On 1/2/2019 5:21 PM, Set Sakrecoer wrote:
> Maybe you have reverted to the old logo and I've just missed out, but
> on this wiki page there only seem to be the "corrrupt" version of the
> Ubuntu studio CoF FTR, The graphic lead from Xubuntu (the Nick is
> escaping my memory right now, sorry) corrected the distorted path seen
> in those available on the wiki page linked above during 16.04 cycle.
> It's been really difficult to remove the broken logo, so i'm not
> blaming anyone. I'll show you the latest versions first thing in the
> morning tomorrow. 
Thanks, Set! I'll await the correct version.
I didn't put that CoF on the Wiki, so chances are it's something left
over from Kaj's time (for all I know). That said, if you have a better
version (preferably in .svg) then we need to attach it to that page. I'd
be more than happy to do that once I have the correct version. :)
Erich



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- 
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] Checking in, a little vision, Calf & LMMS

[Set Sakrecoer]

Good to read some activity :)

> and updating the logo to be matching the official logo at
>https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuStudio/Artwork/UserShowcase#Ubuntu_Studio_Official_Logo.
>The wordmark is correct, but that spinning logo (while a cool idea) is
>off-axis terribly. But, as far as I'm concerned, go nuts. It needs a
>refresh like a monkey needs a banana.
>
>Thanks!
>Erich


Maybe you have reverted to the old logo and I've just missed out, but on this 
wiki page there only seem to be the "corrrupt" version of the Ubuntu studio CoF

FTR, The graphic lead from Xubuntu (the Nick is escaping my memory right now, 
sorry) corrected the distorted path seen in those available on the wiki page 
linked above during 16.04 cycle.

It's been really difficult to remove the broken logo, so i'm not blaming 
anyone. I'll show you the latest versions first thing in the morning tomorrow.
-- 
Set Sakrecoer

-- 
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] Checking in, a little vision, Calf & LMMS

[Erich Eickmeyer]

Hi Thomas,

On 1/2/2019 9:53 AM, Thomas Pfundt wrote:
> Hi Erich and everyone else reading,
>  
> a happy and successful new year to all of you, too!
>  
>  
> On Tuesday, January 1, 2019 7:39 PM, Erich Eickmeyer
> er...@ericheickmeyer.com wrote:
>
> I hope everyone is having a happy new year. I haven't been checking-in
> lately due to a number of things going on in my life. First, it
> was work
> getting busy, then it was a bit of depression onset by my
> resigning said
> position (they pretty much promised me that I wouldn't ever have room
> for advancement or promotion, or even being full-time).
>
>  
> I have also had experiences working in such positions and, without
> knowing your exact life situation, I would like offer a few words of
> encouragement by saying that although it may be difficult, it's not a
> bad choice to end such a condition in which you feel unable to move
> forward and I wish you the best of luck to find a better occupation soon!
>  
>  
Thanks for the encouraging words!

> Erich Eickmeyer wrote:
>
> I, for one, have started-in on ubuntustudio-installer.
> I have moved it from bzr to git, and I'm going to be working on
> adding a
> few entries that will enable it to be used on other flavors for
> installation of Ubuntu Studio-specific items, namely the
> swappiness and
> lowlatency kernel default selection in GRUB.
>
>  
> Is there a comprehensive list of these changes somewhere? I'm only
> aware of https://help.ubuntu.com/community/UbuntuStudioPreparation,
> but that doesn't include much information on the system configuration
> to for example comply with Linuxaudio.org's recommended
> scanner-script: https://github.com/raboof/realtimeconfigquickscan.
>  
> I also remember reading about tweaks regarding the hardware timers on
> https://wiki.linuxaudio.org/wiki/system_configuration#timersthat
> weren't set on my Ubuntu Studio system and I believe, without being
> able to specify anything right now, that there were some other
> configuration options from there on that I adopted. I personally can't
> assess how important those changes are, but I remember reading
> something about the lowlatency kernel not being necessary anymore, as
> all patches had been included in generic at this point. While I don't
> know the details of that and would probably stay with it for safety,
> maybe some parts of the configuration could be in need of a review? I
> might be completely wrong, but that's just something I've been asking
> myself for a while.
>  
Everything that Ubuntu Studio changes to the default install can be
found at https://git.launchpad.net/ubuntustudio-default-settings/tree/,
which is the ubuntustudio-default-settings package. Basically, it adds
files to /etc, /usr, and /lib, and you can browse those from that link.
That "Ubuntu Studio Preparation article is severely outdated as much, if
not all, of the configuration is done with ubuntustudio-default-settings
and ubuntustudio-controls. Len could chime-in for more details.
> Erich Eickmeyer wrote:
>
> The other thing, which I believe Thomas was working on, was
> changing our
> Plymouth boot theme. I'll admit, Plymouth quite over my head. Thomas,
> have you made any progress on this?
>
>  
> I've had to consult with a friend of mine who's working as a
> programmer to get a basic understanding of how the themes work. I
> haven't touched it over the holidays, but I'll try to get something
> viewable together as soon as possible.
>  
> By the way, if anybody has got specific ideas regarding the looks of
> it already, please feel free to share them with me. Now I guess would
> be the time to discuss any ideas.
My only ideas involve removing the tagline (we don't need it, and we're
the only flavor still referencing the old "Linux for Human Beings"
slogan), and updating the logo to be matching the official logo at
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuStudio/Artwork/UserShowcase#Ubuntu_Studio_Official_Logo.
The wordmark is correct, but that spinning logo (while a cool idea) is
off-axis terribly. But, as far as I'm concerned, go nuts. It needs a
refresh like a monkey needs a banana.

Thanks!
Erich



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- 
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] Checking in, a little vision, Calf & LMMS

[Thomas Pfundt]

Hi Erich and everyone else reading,

a happy and successful new year to all of you, too!

On Tuesday, January 1, 2019 7:39 PM, Erich Eickmeyer er...@ericheickmeyer.com 
wrote:

> I hope everyone is having a happy new year. I haven't been checking-in
> lately due to a number of things going on in my life. First, it was work
> getting busy, then it was a bit of depression onset by my resigning said
> position (they pretty much promised me that I wouldn't ever have room
> for advancement or promotion, or even being full-time).

I have also had experiences working in such positions and, without knowing your 
exact life situation, I would like offer a few words of encouragement by saying 
that although it may be difficult, it's not a bad choice to end such a 
condition in which you feel unable to move forward and I wish you the best of 
luck to find a better occupation soon!

Erich Eickmeyer wrote:

> I, for one, have started-in on ubuntustudio-installer.
> I have moved it from bzr to git, and I'm going to be working on adding a
> few entries that will enable it to be used on other flavors for
> installation of Ubuntu Studio-specific items, namely the swappiness and
> lowlatency kernel default selection in GRUB.

Is there a comprehensive list of these changes somewhere? I'm only aware of 
https://help.ubuntu.com/community/UbuntuStudioPreparation, but that doesn't 
include much information on the system configuration to for example comply with 
Linuxaudio.org's recommended scanner-script: 
https://github.com/raboof/realtimeconfigquickscan.

I also remember reading about tweaks regarding the hardware timers on 
https://wiki.linuxaudio.org/wiki/system_configuration#timers that weren't set 
on my Ubuntu Studio system and I believe, without being able to specify 
anything right now, that there were some other configuration options from there 
on that I adopted. I personally can't assess how important those changes are, 
but I remember reading something about the lowlatency kernel not being 
necessary anymore, as all patches had been included in generic at this point. 
While I don't know the details of that and would probably stay with it for 
safety, maybe some parts of the configuration could be in need of a review? I 
might be completely wrong, but that's just something I've been asking myself 
for a while.

Erich Eickmeyer wrote:

> The other thing, which I believe Thomas was working on, was changing our
> Plymouth boot theme. I'll admit, Plymouth quite over my head. Thomas,
> have you made any progress on this?

I've had to consult with a friend of mine who's working as a programmer to get 
a basic understanding of how the themes work. I haven't touched it over the 
holidays, but I'll try to get something viewable together as soon as possible.

By the way, if anybody has got specific ideas regarding the looks of it 
already, please feel free to share them with me. Now I guess would be the time 
to discuss any ideas.

Kind regards,
Thomas-- 
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] Checking in, a little vision, Calf & LMMS

[Ross Gammon]

Hi Erich,

On 1/1/19 7:39 PM, Erich Eickmeyer wrote:
> Hi everyone!
> 
> I hope everyone is having a happy new year. I haven't been checking-in
> lately due to a number of things going on in my life. First, it was work
> getting busy, then it was a bit of depression onset by my resigning said
> position (they pretty much promised me that I wouldn't ever have room
> for advancement or promotion, or even being full-time).

Sorry to hear about your troubles. I hope the new year brings a better
work situation for you.


> 
> With that, I thought I'd check-in to see where everyone is with their
> current projects. I, for one, have started-in on ubuntustudio-installer.
> I have moved it from bzr to git, and I'm going to be working on adding a
> few entries that will enable it to be used on other flavors for
> installation of Ubuntu Studio-specific items, namely the swappiness and
> lowlatency kernel default selection in GRUB. I already split-out the
> parts of ubuntustudio-default-settings to become their own sub-packages,
> so it should be relatively trivial. This should complete the goal of
> allowing other flavors to install the benefits of Ubuntu Studio while
> still keeping their chosen Desktop Environment.

I you need a review of any of these packages before chasing a sponsor,
let me know. If we can minimise the work the sponsors have to do, they
are more likely to look at your packages than somebody else's!

> 
> == Vision for a Beautiful Experience ==
> 
> As many of you know, I also forked Ubuntu MATE's GRUB theme to our own.
> I contacted Simon Quigley to get it into Universe (would be my first
> full package! \o/), so hopefully that will happen. He's got his hands
> full with Lubuntu, so we'll see.

Congrats. It would be great to have an extra hand doing this packaging
stuff :-)

> 
> My thought behind theming GRUB is this: Ubuntu Studio is intended for
> artists of all kinds, and as such should provide a beautiful experience.
> I will concede that the notion of beauty is subjective. For this reason,
> I'm going to also look into the LightDM theme and see if there's
> anything we can learn from other flavors. Right now, Ubuntu MATE
> provides a nice LightDM theme, which I will explore forking into our own.
> 
> The other thing, which I believe Thomas was working on, was changing our
> Plymouth boot theme. I'll admit, Plymouth quite over my head. Thomas,
> have you made any progress on this?
> 
> == Calf & LMMS ==
> 
> Specifically, this goes out to Ross (with a little slice of Len on the
> side): We obviously had to remove LMMS for its dependency on
> calf-ladspa. That said, I have found out that calf-ladspa is a
> subpackage of LMMS and should never have been split-out in upstream
> Debian, that the calf-ladspa plugins are included with LMMS but were
> never intended to 1) be split-out, and 2) be enacted as a dependency.
> This seems like something that could be trivial to fix in the
> debian/control file for the lmms package. I'm wondering, Ross, if you
> could look into this? Here's a link to a thread for more context:
> https://github.com/calf-studio-gear/calf/issues/134

I looked at this a while back. Unfortunately, lmms is not maintained in
the Debian Multimedia Team, so getting it updated is not as easy. but I
will give it ago.

> 
> 
> Well, that's what I've got this time. Would love to hear back from everyone!
> 
> Erich
> 
> 

I have not given up on applying for some upload rights in Ubuntu (again)
sometime this year, so I have been doing a few merges from Debian to
keep the statistics up (they needed to see more sustained activity from
me last time).

Recent sponsored uploads:
1. Qjackctl
2. Blends (needed for debian-multimedia)

Waiting sponsorship:
1. debian-multmedia (multimedia-puredata is used in our audio seed to
pick up all the latest puredata stuff).
I will ping a sponsor soon, now that the holiday season is over.

If you notice any other packages out of date compared to Debian (or
upstream), then let me know.

Cheers,

Ross



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- 
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] Checking in, a little vision, Calf & LMMS

[Erich Eickmeyer]

Hi everyone!

I hope everyone is having a happy new year. I haven't been checking-in
lately due to a number of things going on in my life. First, it was work
getting busy, then it was a bit of depression onset by my resigning said
position (they pretty much promised me that I wouldn't ever have room
for advancement or promotion, or even being full-time).

With that, I thought I'd check-in to see where everyone is with their
current projects. I, for one, have started-in on ubuntustudio-installer.
I have moved it from bzr to git, and I'm going to be working on adding a
few entries that will enable it to be used on other flavors for
installation of Ubuntu Studio-specific items, namely the swappiness and
lowlatency kernel default selection in GRUB. I already split-out the
parts of ubuntustudio-default-settings to become their own sub-packages,
so it should be relatively trivial. This should complete the goal of
allowing other flavors to install the benefits of Ubuntu Studio while
still keeping their chosen Desktop Environment.

== Vision for a Beautiful Experience ==

As many of you know, I also forked Ubuntu MATE's GRUB theme to our own.
I contacted Simon Quigley to get it into Universe (would be my first
full package! \o/), so hopefully that will happen. He's got his hands
full with Lubuntu, so we'll see.

My thought behind theming GRUB is this: Ubuntu Studio is intended for
artists of all kinds, and as such should provide a beautiful experience.
I will concede that the notion of beauty is subjective. For this reason,
I'm going to also look into the LightDM theme and see if there's
anything we can learn from other flavors. Right now, Ubuntu MATE
provides a nice LightDM theme, which I will explore forking into our own.

The other thing, which I believe Thomas was working on, was changing our
Plymouth boot theme. I'll admit, Plymouth quite over my head. Thomas,
have you made any progress on this?

== Calf & LMMS ==

Specifically, this goes out to Ross (with a little slice of Len on the
side): We obviously had to remove LMMS for its dependency on
calf-ladspa. That said, I have found out that calf-ladspa is a
subpackage of LMMS and should never have been split-out in upstream
Debian, that the calf-ladspa plugins are included with LMMS but were
never intended to 1) be split-out, and 2) be enacted as a dependency.
This seems like something that could be trivial to fix in the
debian/control file for the lmms package. I'm wondering, Ross, if you
could look into this? Here's a link to a thread for more context:
https://github.com/calf-studio-gear/calf/issues/134


Well, that's what I've got this time. Would love to hear back from everyone!

Erich



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- 
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] [LMMS-devel] Bastardized 1.0 in 14.04

[Jonathan Aquilina]

Timo im going to email you later as we have a bigger issue with our master
branch and bzr
On 15 Apr 2014 10:14, Timo Jyrinki timo.jyri...@gmail.com wrote:

 2014-04-14 10:32 GMT+03:00 Jonathan Aquilina eagles051...@gmail.com:
  @Timo if we file an SRU is it safe to say that we have you to back such a
  request?

 Sure. I can probably help best by reviewing any branch that's
 suggested to be merged against
 https://code.launchpad.net/~ubuntu-branches/ubuntu/trusty/lmms/trusty
 as part of that SRU.

 So here's a recap of what needs to be understood and done (there might
 be other ways too):
 1. bzr branch lp:~ubuntu-branches/ubuntu/trusty/lmms/trusty # Base
 your branch on the current packaging branch in trusty, which includes
 both upstream sources and the debian/ packaging
 2. Have Israel set up https://launchpad.net/lmms so that in addition
 to lp:lmms there's a code branch that tracks upstream 1.0.0-stable in
 addition to master
 3. bzr merge lp:lmms/1.0.0-stable # (example, after the branch is there)
 3.-2. Another possibility to 2./3. would be if there's eg. a 1.0.1
 tarball, or a git archive:d 1.0.0+git20140415.abcdabcd tarball, and
 use bzr merge-upstream (see --help for instructions) and forget about
 bzr upstream mirror branches
 4. Edit changelog to indicate a newer snapshot from the stable branch,
 refer to the LP bug where you describe the problem being solved in the
 SRU
 5. Drop patches that are already part of the stable branch
 6. Push your branch to eg lp:~myname/ubuntu/trusty/lmms/trusty_SRU and
 use Launchpad web interface to propose it for merging against
 lp:~ubuntu-branches/ubuntu/trusty/lmms/trusty
 7. Follow all https://wiki.ubuntu.com/StableReleaseUpdates guidelines
 in setting the bug description et cetera

 The package should be buildable from the branch with 'bzr bd' (apt-get
 install bzr-builddeb) without errors of any kind.

 -Timo (Mirv @ Freenode)


 --
 Learn Graph Databases - Download FREE O'Reilly Book
 Graph Databases is the definitive new guide to graph databases and their
 applications. Written by three acclaimed leaders in the field,
 this first edition is now available. Download your free book today!
 http://p.sf.net/sfu/NeoTech
 ___
 LMMS-devel mailing list
 lmms-de...@lists.sourceforge.net
 https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/lmms-devel

-- 
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

LMMS

[Len Ovens]

The ubuntu version of LMMS seems to come with VST support including wine
(depends not recomends). We have had some of this stuff before and there
has been issues with 64bit ISO builds as I recall. In other words a 64bit
machine can load wine but the ISO still doesn't build. We had that problem
before we went to live ISO... so there would be another problem as well.
When wine loads it grabs the windows fonts which are free but licensed.
The user has to ok the license. I don't know that this would be possible
with ubiquity... Doesn't work with jackd. It may be best to leave it as
extra SW. Interesting thing is that as installed, the software center
can't see LMMS even though synaptic can. The sources have to be added
under other software - Canonical Partners and/or Independent, before it
shows up. This may mean it is not considered to be _in_ the ubuntu repos.

Also after ISO install software center can't install software until the
update manager has been run at least once (bug reported and confirmed,
seems not to be a US problem).


-- 
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: LMMS

[Eric Hedekar]

On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 1:31 PM, Len Ovens l...@ovenwerks.net wrote:

 The ubuntu version of LMMS seems to come with VST support including wine
 (depends not recomends). We have had some of this stuff before and there
 has been issues with 64bit ISO builds as I recall. In other words a 64bit
 machine can load wine but the ISO still doesn't build. We had that problem
 before we went to live ISO... so there would be another problem as well.
 When wine loads it grabs the windows fonts which are free but licensed.
 The user has to ok the license. I don't know that this would be possible
 with ubiquity... Doesn't work with jackd. It may be best to leave it as
 extra SW. Interesting thing is that as installed, the software center
 can't see LMMS even though synaptic can. The sources have to be added
 under other software - Canonical Partners and/or Independent, before it
 shows up. This may mean it is not considered to be _in_ the ubuntu repos.

 Also after ISO install software center can't install software until the
 update manager has been run at least once (bug reported and confirmed,
 seems not to be a US problem).


 --
 Len Ovens
 www.OvenWerks.net



Quite right.  There are licensing issues that LMMS is currently built with
in the repos that we can't exactly include by default.  It would take a lot
of work to tweak and maintain a different LMMS build, and even then we'd be
creating a reduced feature set for the end user and those who really want
to use the program would likely install a different version (or be
discouraged by our included version and not use the program at all).  It's
probably best to stick with more fully open and free software, suggesting
LMMS to those interested in using VST-based production methods, possibly
via a suggestion in our help documents.

- Eric Hedekar
-- 
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: LMMS

[ttoine]

Eric,

But is there a fully open and free software that can used instead of LMMS ?

Toine

2012/10/14 Eric Hedekar aftertheb...@gmail.com:
 On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 1:31 PM, Len Ovens l...@ovenwerks.net wrote:

 The ubuntu version of LMMS seems to come with VST support including wine
 (depends not recomends). We have had some of this stuff before and there
 has been issues with 64bit ISO builds as I recall. In other words a 64bit
 machine can load wine but the ISO still doesn't build. We had that problem
 before we went to live ISO... so there would be another problem as well.
 When wine loads it grabs the windows fonts which are free but licensed.
 The user has to ok the license. I don't know that this would be possible
 with ubiquity... Doesn't work with jackd. It may be best to leave it as
 extra SW. Interesting thing is that as installed, the software center
 can't see LMMS even though synaptic can. The sources have to be added
 under other software - Canonical Partners and/or Independent, before it
 shows up. This may mean it is not considered to be _in_ the ubuntu repos.

 Also after ISO install software center can't install software until the
 update manager has been run at least once (bug reported and confirmed,
 seems not to be a US problem).


 --
 Len Ovens
 www.OvenWerks.net



 Quite right.  There are licensing issues that LMMS is currently built with
 in the repos that we can't exactly include by default.  It would take a lot
 of work to tweak and maintain a different LMMS build, and even then we'd be
 creating a reduced feature set for the end user and those who really want to
 use the program would likely install a different version (or be discouraged
 by our included version and not use the program at all).  It's probably best
 to stick with more fully open and free software, suggesting LMMS to those
 interested in using VST-based production methods, possibly via a suggestion
 in our help documents.

 - Eric Hedekar



 --
 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 mailing list
Ubuntu-Studio-devel@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: 
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-studio-devel

Re: LMMS

[Kaj Ailomaa]

On Sun, 14 Oct 2012 23:44:17 +0200, ttoine tto...@ttoine.net wrote:


Eric,

But is there a fully open and free software that can used instead of  
LMMS ?


Toine

2012/10/14 Eric Hedekar aftertheb...@gmail.com:

On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 1:31 PM, Len Ovens l...@ovenwerks.net wrote:
Quite right.  There are licensing issues that LMMS is currently built  
with
in the repos that we can't exactly include by default.  It would take a  
lot
of work to tweak and maintain a different LMMS build, and even then  
we'd be
creating a reduced feature set for the end user and those who really  
want to
use the program would likely install a different version (or be  
discouraged
by our included version and not use the program at all).  It's probably  
best
to stick with more fully open and free software, suggesting LMMS to  
those
interested in using VST-based production methods, possibly via a  
suggestion

in our help documents.

- Eric Hedekar



--
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





From a recent discussion on IRC I believe it was concluded that whatever  
licensing issues there are is because of wine, which 32bit LMMS brings in,  
so LMMS itself has no licensing issues. I also believe it was concluded  
that LMMS can be installed without wine, leaving it up to the user whether  
or not to install it separately.


--
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: LMMS

[Len Ovens]

On Sun, October 14, 2012 2:44 pm, ttoine wrote:
 Eric,

 But is there a fully open and free software that can used instead of
 LMMS ?

I think the licensing issues are wine related. The fonts in particular But
they are not depends so we may be able to just not install them and still
run LMMS. But, the amd64 version of LMMS does not have VST support (or
need wine) so we would be supporting two different versions, a full 32 bit
and a less full 64bit. Anyone trying to help someone with LMMS who has the
32 bit version would frustrate the 64bit user. (the kxstudio versions have
the same problem BTW) I am beginning to understand why LMMS has not been
included in the distro...

-- 
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: LMMS

[Kaj Ailomaa]

On Mon, 15 Oct 2012 00:16:34 +0200, Len Ovens l...@ovenwerks.net wrote:



On Sun, October 14, 2012 2:44 pm, ttoine wrote:

Eric,

But is there a fully open and free software that can used instead of
LMMS ?


I think the licensing issues are wine related. The fonts in particular  
But

they are not depends so we may be able to just not install them and still
run LMMS. But, the amd64 version of LMMS does not have VST support (or
need wine) so we would be supporting two different versions, a full 32  
bit
and a less full 64bit. Anyone trying to help someone with LMMS who has  
the
32 bit version would frustrate the 64bit user. (the kxstudio versions  
have

the same problem BTW) I am beginning to understand why LMMS has not been
included in the distro...




I haven't heard anyone else but you talk about these issues, so I'm not  
hearing any evidence that this would be the case.
VST support on Linux, with wine, is somewhat an extra addition, which  
requries it's own knowledgebase. It's not a requirement in any way.
I don't see why this has to have any weight at all in deciding whether or  
not to add an open source Linux program to the default set of Ubuntu  
Studio applications.


As to the lack of info on Linux+VST in Ubuntu Studio docs, this could be  
ammended by writing some. Or, pointing with links to docs that deals with  
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: LMMS

[Eric Hedekar]

On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 7:28 PM, Len Ovens l...@ovenwerks.net wrote:


 On Sun, October 14, 2012 6:20 pm, Eric Hedekar wrote:

  Also, I just checked.  The LMMS binary is built upstream in Debian and
  inherited into Ubuntu.  So disabling the wine dependency (and thus VST
  support) would then disable it for all Debian distributions.  I don't
  believe this is an option worth considering.

 Wouldn't listing the fonts package in the blacklist seed stop the live ISO
 from adding that?

 I think we should try it. I think it would do one of three things:

 1) apt will try and install it anyway and the ISO won't build
 2) apt will add it to the stuff that needs to be installed but won't
 because of the blacklist and so will download the installer at install
 time and at first update will run the installer and the user will get the
 license screen.
 3) the font will not install and the user will not be able to install
 afterwards either (because of black list - I don't think so)
 4) (where did this come from?) the font will not install but the user will
 be able to install latter.

 1 and 3 are bad, 2 and 4 are ok. 1a) apt will add it to the ISO build but
 the accept will not happen so it won't load... this may be ok.

 So now its five things :)


I'm not exactly sure what will take place if the recommended font package
gets blacklisted.  I'm also not sure of the legality of this - i.e. will
the font package in question appear on our ISO and do we have legal rights
to do this with our/ubuntu's distribution policies?

I will say that the users may complain that wine does not run nicely unless
these fonts are installed after.  If you've blacklisted the fonts then can
they ever install them without throwing a conflict error?  There's a lot of
testing that will need to be worked on here.  Wine is quite a big element
of many people's computers.  Be careful what you blacklist.  Fairly soon I
think some MOTU consultation should take place on this matter.  Len can you
look into these questions?

-Eric
-- 
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: LMMS

[Len Ovens]

On Sun, October 14, 2012 8:24 pm, Eric Hedekar wrote:

 I'm not exactly sure what will take place if the recommended font package
 gets blacklisted.  I'm also not sure of the legality of this - i.e. will
 the font package in question appear on our ISO and do we have legal rights
 to do this with our/ubuntu's distribution policies?

The package is not a font package (which is why it is in the repos) It is
a font installer. Like the flash installer that used to come with firefox.
It does not have any fonts in the package itself. Just the address of
where to find them and the license text for the user to accept (I am not
even sure it does not download that part too). Wine will work without the
MScore fonts but will use obviously different fonts in their place. They
are quite readable though. It would be possible to give a no accept
answer in the preseeds as we do for jackd (jackd is a yes). The jackd
package sets no first (if there is no prior setting) then asks and
changes it if the user does. So in an auto setting no is selected. The
mscorefont-installer should do the same, but we should check. If so
there should be no problem as the fonts would not be installed even though
the installer was. However we can find out what the variable is and what
it needs to be set to for a no answer and preseed it to be sure.

What I don't know is what happens to the installer after that. does it
stay on disk? get deleted? Does apt record it as already installed? Is the
no accept answer stored somewhere?

I think the user would have to force reinstall after that. This is my guess.


-- 
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: LMMS

[Kaj Ailomaa]

On Mon, 15 Oct 2012 03:16:16 +0200, Eric Hedekar aftertheb...@gmail.com wrote:On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 3:29 PM, Kaj Ailomaa zeque...@mousike.me wrote:

On Mon, 15 Oct 2012 00:16:34 +0200, Len Ovens l...@ovenwerks.net wrote:



On Sun, October 14, 2012 2:44 pm, ttoine wrote:

Eric,

But is there a "fully open and free software" that can used instead of
LMMS ?


I think the licensing issues are wine related. The fonts in particular But
they are not depends so we may be able to just not install them and still
run LMMS. But, the amd64 version of LMMS does not have VST support (or
need wine) so we would be supporting two different versions, a full 32 bit
and a less full 64bit. Anyone trying to help someone with LMMS who has the
32 bit version would frustrate the 64bit user. (the kxstudio versions have
the same problem BTW) I am beginning to understand why LMMS has not been
included in the distro...




I haven't heard anyone else but you talk about these issues, so I'm not hearing any evidence that this would be the case.
VST support on Linux, with wine, is somewhat an extra addition, which requries it's own knowledgebase. It's not a requirement in any way.
I don't see why this has to have any weight at all in deciding whether or not to add an open source Linux program to the default set of Ubuntu Studio applications.

As to the lack of info on Linux+VST in Ubuntu Studio docs, this could be ammended by writing some. Or, pointing with links to docs that deals with it.
Kaj,The LMMS package in Ubuntu is built upon the wine libraries in the universe repository (this is done to allow VST support out of the box without advanced re-compiling). In order for the LMMS binary to run in Ubuntu a wine package needs to be installed. The wine package recommends fonts that require the user's manual acceptance for install. By default the apt-get program automatically installs all 'recommends' packages. So there are two possible routes for us to possibly include LMMS in Ubuntu Studio: 

1) Write some install code that prevents apt-get from installing the recommends for wine (this would give users a poor wine experience on their machines, but it's possible to get their approval later on to install these recommends to fix the wine experience but that'd require more script writing).I think this is the best approach. And this is only for the 32bit version, since the 64bit is not compiled with wine support.The LMMS package has not been updated for a couple of years, which is another problem to consider, but both solving the lack of wine support on 64bit, and updating the package is best done by Debian Multimedia Team, and if we are not planning on helping them with that(cause we are undermanned, and have lack of time), at least we can work on making the installation easy for the user.If we add LMMS, we'll add info about wine support for 32bit/64bit on the homepage, as well as the community help docs.If we do decide to add LMMS, I'll volunteer to do this. 

2) Recompile the LMMS binary in Ubuntu so that VST support is no longer working. This is a flawed logic option IMHO as one of the main things LMMS claims is to be a fruity-loops substitute. For new users to Linux, having the option of either a non-VST version of LMMS pre-installed or a functioning VST version of LMMS that is manually installed, the later is probably much more preferable. Not everyone needs VST but some do, and deactivating this feature of the program for all Ubuntu users just so the program can legally be included by default in our distro seems quite silly and counter productive to our distro's goals.

ttoine, There's lots of LMMS alternatives from what I know of the program. Users can also just install LMMS if they don't like those alternatives. Having it installed by default poses too many hurdles for what we gain.

- Eric Hedekar-- 
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: LMMS?

[Len Ovens]

More LMMS stuff. Reading what docs I can find seem to indicate that
stability problems have been fixed since .3.* and ubuntu has .4.10 (latest
is .4.13 which I seem to have from kxstudio ppa) I don't know if debian
has a later version and a sync request should be done (speaking of which
could someone do a sync request for Ardour? I can't as my netbook has
problems right now).

LMMS does seem to have latency problems with pulse (which it will of
course default to) and works fine direct to ALSA or jack. (not tested, but
from docs)

The only listed problems with Jack are the normal operator doen't know
jack kinds of problems (failing to hook outputs to to a card).

LMMS is not designed to record audio and has no way of doing so. Syncing a
voice track recorded somewhere else is left to the user. This is not IMO
well documented, but on the other hand does not seem to have been a
problem with our test subject :)

Speaking of sync... None of the docs I read (FAQs included) even mention
syncing LMMS to anything else. By anything else I mean: Jack transport,
time code, MTC, MMC etc. I also don't see anything that would indicate it
generates any of these things.

Import and export: I would like to see this explored. Is there an upgrade
path? Does LMMS export .mid files or something that another sequencer can
deal with? I suppose midi out could be recorded on another sequencer, but
without sync, the extra work required to fix that could be a problem. Does
it export those automated chords it creates? Obviously samples would have
to be dealt with differently. After more checking, Export types are wav
and ogg. No midi. I am not even sure there is midi ouput, the docs talk
about getting an external KB working but not an external synth. In any
case each track is setup for in/output separately. It's internal file
format does not seem to be something standard either.

Speaking of samples, there are reportedly problems importing *wav files as
samples. Hmm, isn't that the most obvious lossless file format? Use FLAC.
MP3 files are not supported... but maybe that is a good thing :)  Wav
files at least should be tested.

Hmm, I seem to have been running LMMS with jack as output. Starts Jack on
it's own. Jackd set with -p 128 shows a number of xruns with LMMS sitting
idle. (I haven't looked at why)

For those of you who are still with me at this point. None of these points
are particularly bad or good. They are things to remember if a user asks
questions. Should we include LMMS in US it would be good to remember that
this really is a standalone application. Not only is it not designed to
work with other applications, it really just doesn't have the facilities
to do so. For someone like myself coming from a Linux CLI background of
app | app | app etc. this is broken thinking. But then I have never
claimed to be normal or some approximation there of. From a windows pov
maybe this is normal.

-- 
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: LMMS?

[Len Ovens]

On Sat, October 6, 2012 12:18 pm, Len Ovens wrote:

 For those of you who are still with me at this point. None of these points
 are particularly bad or good. They are things to remember if a user asks
 questions. Should we include LMMS in US it would be good to remember that
 this really is a standalone application. Not only is it not designed to
 work with other applications, it really just doesn't have the facilities
 to do so. For someone like myself coming from a Linux CLI background of
 app | app | app etc. this is broken thinking. But then I have never
 claimed to be normal or some approximation there of. From a windows pov
 maybe this is normal.

The Road map for LMMS 1.0 seems to try to deal with almost all the
points I noticed in my last email plus some (multi-layer samples for
example).

-- 
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: LMMS?

[Len Ovens]

On Tue, October 2, 2012 4:22 pm, Kaj Ailomaa wrote:

 I've had plenty of stability issues with Qtractor, while Ardour is lacking
 in midi capability.
 lmms is not as complex, but does include builtin instruments. It's perfect
 for novice users, who have little experience in audio applications, as
 well as for anyone interested in the instruments it offers.
 lmms is in fact the simplest tool to use if you quickly want to make some
 electronic music. Just drag and drop instruments, and start making music.
 So, I would argue that it does fill a workflow.--

I would like to see it tested in R for stability. Both ardour and qtractor
do crash once in a while, documetation for ardour at least, suggests
saving snapshots frequently and from what I have read on LAU, people do,
some even using things like git or similar on a second machine to keep
them. So the stability we are looking for would not be perfect, but good
enough that a novice is not going to get discouraged from using Linux to
make music at least. Stabilty with jackd being a criteria makes sense as
that is still the only way to use a firewire device... on the other hand
maybe firewire audio is already past the novice stage. (the number of
novices that start by buying the hardware and then trying is still quite
high though... I did)

Quite honestly this is a blind side for me. All my recording has used
external audio. My very minor keyboard playing ability is quite rusty :)
but would in any case be limited to pads of some sort which qtractor is
more than adequate for (for that matter my old QX7 would probably lock to
jack ok as well) anything I am likely to use.

Anyway, if it is stable enough and others feel it fills a workflow... fine
by me. I am willing to test it... but may need some direction to do so.


-- 
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: LMMS?

[Ho Wan Chan]

Anyway talk about it in R cycle...Feature Freeze is here...

2012/10/2 Mike Holstein mikeh...@gmail.com

 On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 6:42 AM, Kaj Ailomaa zeque...@mousike.me wrote:

 **
 On Mon, 01 Oct 2012 21:15:30 +0200, Scott Lavender 
 scottalaven...@gmail.com wrote:



 On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 10:17 AM, Ho Wan Chan smartbo...@gmail.comwrote:

 Hi all.

 In #ubuntustudio today somebody asked if we should add LMMS to it.

 I agree we need to since it is a crucial part of the system and it takes
 only about 10 MB of disk space so...

 BTW I talked to Nicholas Skaggs and the final decision was to dump the
 manual partitioning and auto-resize testcases and only remain the entire
 disk one along with live session and the forecoming post-installation
 testcases.

 Thanks everybody

 Regards,
 Howard Chan (smartboyhw)

 --
 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


 I think characterizing this as a crucial part of the system might be
 misrepresenting LMMS as I think Ubuntu Studio is quite functional in
 numerous use cases.

 We should also consider how many people are asking for LMMS. If we
 included every application asked for, we would easily oversize the 4gig
 image. I have been worried about making everyone download extra megs (oh,
 won't someone think of the bandwidth) because one person said we should
 include something.

 However, I am not opposed to including it. I just want to make sure we
 evaluate the inclusion on it's own merits, that we are supported a complete
 work flow (i.e. there are no other applications needed to support getting
 the task done), and the user demand warrants inclusion.

 I look forward to other's input.

 ScottL


 I think it's a valid addition.
 I know some people prefer this kind of applications to Qtractor or Ardour.
 On their homepage they make reference to LMMS being a Linux alternative
 to FL Studio. In my experience there are FL Studio people, and then there
 is the other kind.
 Don't use it myself, but I definitely think it fills a workflow hole for
 a good portion of people.

 i found LMMS to be crashy in 10.04... and i havent used it since really.
 if its stable and something that others want added, im OK with that. i
 always thought that even if it worked and was stable, my opinion was that
 it was toy-ish... we cant include *everything* and there are some key
 pieces of my workflow that are not installed that i have no issues with
 installing on my own. however, if someone wants to host a meeting, and
 vote on the inclusion of LMMS, i'll come and participate, and not vote it
 down, since i have no strong opinions other than it needs to be stable.

 --
 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




 --
 MH

 mikeholstein.info http://www.mikeholstein.info/



 --
 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 mailing list
Ubuntu-Studio-devel@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: 
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-studio-devel

Re: LMMS?

[Eric Hedekar]

On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 6:44 AM, Mike Holstein mikeh...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 6:42 AM, Kaj Ailomaa zeque...@mousike.me wrote:

 **
 On Mon, 01 Oct 2012 21:15:30 +0200, Scott Lavender 
 scottalaven...@gmail.com wrote:



 On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 10:17 AM, Ho Wan Chan smartbo...@gmail.comwrote:

 Hi all.

 In #ubuntustudio today somebody asked if we should add LMMS to it.

 I agree we need to since it is a crucial part of the system and it takes
 only about 10 MB of disk space so...

 BTW I talked to Nicholas Skaggs and the final decision was to dump the
 manual partitioning and auto-resize testcases and only remain the entire
 disk one along with live session and the forecoming post-installation
 testcases.

 Thanks everybody

 Regards,
 Howard Chan (smartboyhw)

 --
 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


 I think characterizing this as a crucial part of the system might be
 misrepresenting LMMS as I think Ubuntu Studio is quite functional in
 numerous use cases.

 We should also consider how many people are asking for LMMS. If we
 included every application asked for, we would easily oversize the 4gig
 image. I have been worried about making everyone download extra megs (oh,
 won't someone think of the bandwidth) because one person said we should
 include something.

 However, I am not opposed to including it. I just want to make sure we
 evaluate the inclusion on it's own merits, that we are supported a complete
 work flow (i.e. there are no other applications needed to support getting
 the task done), and the user demand warrants inclusion.

 I look forward to other's input.

 ScottL


 I think it's a valid addition.
 I know some people prefer this kind of applications to Qtractor or Ardour.
 On their homepage they make reference to LMMS being a Linux alternative
 to FL Studio. In my experience there are FL Studio people, and then there
 is the other kind.
 Don't use it myself, but I definitely think it fills a workflow hole for
 a good portion of people.

 i found LMMS to be crashy in 10.04... and i havent used it since really.
 if its stable and something that others want added, im OK with that. i
 always thought that even if it worked and was stable, my opinion was that
 it was toy-ish... we cant include *everything* and there are some key
 pieces of my workflow that are not installed that i have no issues with
 installing on my own. however, if someone wants to host a meeting, and
 vote on the inclusion of LMMS, i'll come and participate, and not vote it
 down, since i have no strong opinions other than it needs to be stable.

 --
 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




 --
 MH

 mikeholstein.info http://www.mikeholstein.info/



 --
 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



This is certainly not the first discussion we've had about including LMMS,
and it probably won't be the last.  None of the past conversations have
come to a conclusion that it should be included as there are other more
polished tools that complete the same or similar workflow.  LMMS has had
stability issues in the past but maybe it's outgrown these now.  My
personal vote would be to include it in the 'suggested install' section and
leave it off the actual disk.  It's possible that reorganization of the
workflows and meta packages could find a slot where LMMS fits perfectly,
but I don't believe there's a spot it would fill right now.

-Eric Hedekar
-- 
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: LMMS?

[Kaj Ailomaa]

On Tue, 02 Oct 2012 16:13:20 +0200, Eric Hedekar aftertheb...@gmail.com wrote:On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 6:44 AM, Mike Holstein mikeh...@gmail.com wrote:

On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 6:42 AM, Kaj Ailomaa zeque...@mousike.me wrote:





On Mon, 01 Oct 2012 21:15:30 +0200, Scott Lavender scottalaven...@gmail.com wrote:


On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 10:17 AM, Ho Wan Chan smartbo...@gmail.com wrote:



Hi all.In #ubuntustudio today somebody asked if we should add LMMS to it. I agree we need to since it is a crucial part of the system and it takes only about 10 MB of disk space so...BTW I talked to Nicholas Skaggs and the final decision was to dump the manual partitioning and auto-resize testcases and only remain the entire disk one along with live session and the forecoming post-installation testcases.




Thanks everybodyRegards,Howard Chan (smartboyhw)
--
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
I think characterizing this as "a crucial part of the system" might be misrepresenting LMMS asI think Ubuntu Studio is quite functional in numerous use cases.



We should also consider how many people are asking for LMMS. If we included every application asked for, we would easily oversize the 4gig image. I have been worried about making everyone download extra megs (oh, won't someone think of the bandwidth) because one person said we should include something.



However, I am not opposed to including it. I just want to make sure we evaluate the inclusion on it's own merits, that we are supported a complete work flow (i.e. there are no other applications needed to support getting the task done), and the user demand warrants inclusion.



I look forward to other's input.ScottL
I think it's a valid addition. I know some people prefer this kind of applications to Qtractor or Ardour.On their homepage they make reference to LMMS being a Linux alternative to FL Studio. In my experience there are FL Studio people, and then there is the other kind.


Don't use it myself, but I definitely think it fills a workflow hole for a good portion of people.i found LMMS to be crashy in 10.04... and i havent used it since really. if its stable and something that others want added, im OK with that. i always thought that even if it worked and was stable, my opinion was that it was "toy-ish"... we cant include *everything* and there are some key pieces of my workflow that are not installed that i have no issues with installing on my own. however, if someone wants to host a meeting, and "vote" on the inclusion of LMMS, i'll come and participate, and not vote it down, since i have no strong opinions other than it needs to be stable.


--
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
-- MHmikeholstein.info


--
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
This is certainly not the first discussion we've had about including LMMS, and it probably won't be the last. None of the past conversations have come to a conclusion that it should be included as there are other more polished tools that complete the same or similar workflow. LMMS has had stability issues in the past but maybe it's outgrown these now. My personal vote would be to include it in the 'suggested install' section and leave it off the actual disk. It's possible that reorganization of the workflows and meta packages could find a slot where LMMS fits perfectly, but I don't believe there's a spot it would fill right now.

-Eric Hedekar
I've had plenty of stability issues with Qtractor, while Ardour is lacking in midi capability.lmms is not as complex, but does include builtin instruments. It's perfect for novice users, who have little experience in audio applications, as well as for anyone interested in the instruments it offers.lmms is in fact the simplest tool to use if you quickly want to make some electronic music. Just drag and drop instruments, and start making music. So, I would argue that it does fill a workflow.-- 
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: LMMS?

[Len Ovens]

On Tue, October 2, 2012 6:44 am, Mike Holstein wrote:

 i found LMMS to be crashy in 10.04... and i havent used it since really.
 if its stable and something that others want added, im OK with that. i
 always thought that even if it worked and was stable, my opinion was that
 it was toy-ish... we cant include *everything* and there are some key
 pieces of my workflow that are not installed that i have no issues with
 installing on my own. however, if someone wants to host a meeting, and
 vote on the inclusion of LMMS, i'll come and participate, and not vote
 it
 down, since i have no strong opinions other than it needs to be stable.

+1 on the toyish. In fact that is why the user who asked wants it. It has
auto chording (insert a note with the mouse and it chords it). LMMS is
already one of the Extra apps that shows up when the extra applications
menu item is selected. I feel really strongly not for 12.10. 13.04 would
be ok. However, I think we should be prepared to get asked (even more than
now) why we don't have RG which is the same kind of thing but more
professional. There are for that matter, as others have said, a number of
other sequencer/daw/whatever applications available.

What this user likes about it, aside from auto chord, I think is a low
learning curve for his first try at recording. One app does his whole
thing, both recording vocals/guitar as well as some synth work. There is
no doubt in my mind he could do everything he has done on qtracktor. Just
a matter of learning how... a utube howto (not printed) is what he needs.
(Len does better with printed, but understands others work differently)

I don't know if it works like x windows application is a valid reason to
call something entry level.

-- 
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

LMMS?

[Ho Wan Chan]

Hi all.

In #ubuntustudio today somebody asked if we should add LMMS to it.

I agree we need to since it is a crucial part of the system and it takes
only about 10 MB of disk space so...

BTW I talked to Nicholas Skaggs and the final decision was to dump the
manual partitioning and auto-resize testcases and only remain the entire
disk one along with live session and the forecoming post-installation
testcases.

Thanks everybody

Regards,
Howard Chan (smartboyhw)
-- 
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: LMMS?

[Scott Lavender]

On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 10:17 AM, Ho Wan Chan smartbo...@gmail.com wrote:

 Hi all.

 In #ubuntustudio today somebody asked if we should add LMMS to it.

 I agree we need to since it is a crucial part of the system and it takes
 only about 10 MB of disk space so...

 BTW I talked to Nicholas Skaggs and the final decision was to dump the
 manual partitioning and auto-resize testcases and only remain the entire
 disk one along with live session and the forecoming post-installation
 testcases.

 Thanks everybody

 Regards,
 Howard Chan (smartboyhw)

 --
 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


I think characterizing this as a crucial part of the system might be
misrepresenting LMMS as I think Ubuntu Studio is quite functional in
numerous use cases.

We should also consider how many people are asking for LMMS. If we included
every application asked for, we would easily oversize the 4gig image. I
have been worried about making everyone download extra megs (oh, won't
someone think of the bandwidth) because one person said we should include
something.

However, I am not opposed to including it. I just want to make sure we
evaluate the inclusion on it's own merits, that we are supported a complete
work flow (i.e. there are no other applications needed to support getting
the task done), and the user demand warrants inclusion.

I look forward to other's input.

ScottL
-- 
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

Why LMMS is not in 12.04?

[Tobiasz Karoń]

Hi!

I wonder why was LMMS dropped from the basic package. I consider it to be
one of the most useful production tools in my studio :)

Cheers!

-- 
Tobiasz *unfa*

-BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-
Version: 3.1
GIT/MU/P d--- s+:-(--) a? C++(+++)$ ULC+(++)$ !P? L+++$ E? W++$
!N-? !o--? K-? !w-- O? !M-- V? PS++ PE++ !Y+ !PGP+? !t(+) 5? !X !R+ tv
b DI+ D+ G e h--- !r y--()
--END GEEK CODE BLOCK--
-- 
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: Why LMMS is not in 12.04?

[Mike Holstein]

On Sep 11, 2012 5:16 AM, Tobiasz Karoń unf...@gmail.com wrote:

 Hi!

 I wonder why was LMMS dropped from the basic package. I consider it to be
one of the most useful production tools in my studio :)

There is not room for everything, so some things will not be included by
default. lmms should be easy to install using the package manager of your
choice. Several users were having issues with lmms being stable with jack.
When I had last used it (somewhere around 9.10/10.04) it would crash jack
or using it with jack would cause lmms to crash. I also though the look and
feel made it seem more like a toy than a professional audio production
tool. If it were going to be included, there would need to be community
members testing and reporting upstream, and helping to resolve these issues.

 Cheers!

 --
 Tobiasz unfa

 -BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-
 Version: 3.1
 GIT/MU/P d--- s+:-(--) a? C++(+++)$ ULC+(++)$ !P? L+++$ E? W++$
!N-? !o--? K-? !w-- O? !M-- V? PS++ PE++ !Y+ !PGP+? !t(+) 5? !X !R+ tv
b DI+ D+ G e h--- !r y--()
 --END GEEK CODE BLOCK--


 --
 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 mailing list
Ubuntu-Studio-devel@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: 
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-studio-devel

Re: Why LMMS is not in 12.04?

[Len Ovens]

On Tue, September 11, 2012 6:30 am, Mike Holstein wrote:
 On Sep 11, 2012 5:16 AM, Tobiasz Karoń unf...@gmail.com wrote:

 Hi!

 I wonder why was LMMS dropped from the basic package. I consider it to
 be
 one of the most useful production tools in my studio :)

 There is not room for everything, so some things will not be included by
 default. lmms should be easy to install using the package manager of your
 choice. Several users were having issues with lmms being stable with jack.
 When I had last used it (somewhere around 9.10/10.04) it would crash jack
 or using it with jack would cause lmms to crash. I also though the look
 and
 feel made it seem more like a toy than a professional audio production
 tool. If it were going to be included, there would need to be community
 members testing and reporting upstream, and helping to resolve these
 issues.

However, starting with ubuntustudio 12.10, we are trying an easy install
option that opens an installer with extra applications for the menu it is
located in. Lmms is included in that.

Ubuntu Studio is already (as far as I know) the biggest ISO in Ubuntu at 2
Gig. and growing. We have tried to carefully select full work flows with
one application per spot in the work flow. We have tried to pick the best
app for each spot though we have limited ourselves to gnome apps and
haven't added things that require the KDE libs.

Still, there are lots of applications in the ubuntu repos that anyone can
install to add to what we think is a solid base.


-- 
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