2009/3/17 Free Ekanayaka
> Hi Eric,
>
> |--==> On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 08:31:32 -0500, Eric Dantan Rzewnicki <
> e...@zhevny.com> said:
>
> >>So, sid/unstable version of Ardour will be there forever and ever and
> >>never be released nor meet testing because of debian developer
> "laziness"
> >>in
Free Ekanayaka wrote:
Hi,
|--==> On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 12:51:59 +0100, Grammostola Rosea
said:
GR> Daniel James wrote:
>>Hi Raffaele,
>>
>>>"Debian does not support multimedia desktop/laptop users 'out of
>>>the box'."
>>>If you all were coding for debian packages probably they will
Hi,
|--==> On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 12:51:59 +0100, Grammostola Rosea
said:
GR> Daniel James wrote:
>>Hi Raffaele,
>>
>>>"Debian does not support multimedia desktop/laptop users 'out of
>>>the box'."
>>>If you all were coding for debian packages probably they will ;-)
>>
>>We do, but
Hi Eric,
|--==> On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 08:31:32 -0500, Eric Dantan Rzewnicki
said:
>>So, sid/unstable version of Ardour will be there forever and ever and
>>never be released nor meet testing because of debian developer "laziness"
>>in patching...
>>...can someone borrow me a flame-thrower
Hi Felipe,
Ardour embedded many libraries that could easily
be stripped out: they were just convenience copies.
Or put another way, known working copies for quality control purposes
:-) Ardour developers can't be expected to support binaries that distros
break.
I agree this is not best pra
El 11/03/09 23:38 Daniel James escribió:
> Hi Raffaele,
>
> > I can't go in deep about debian packages accept/reject workflow and
> > policy stuff but non-free repository should allow some compromise in
> > these direction...
>
> It wasn't about free versus non-free (for once), it was that Ardour
>
Hi Rosea,
Not a good thing that such a core application is not in Debian stable /
testing.
True, but Lenny users can get a backport of Ardour 2.7 here:
http://apt.64studio.com/backports/pool/main/a/ardour/
Why does other distro's like Ubuntu, Fedora, OpenSuse have it included?
Ubuntu prob
Eric Dantan Rzewnicki wrote:
On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 02:08:57PM +0100, Cassiel wrote:
2009/3/11 Daniel James
Hi Raffaele,
I can't go in deep about debian packages accept/reject workflow and
policy stuff but non-free repository should allow some compromise in
th
On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 02:08:57PM +0100, Cassiel wrote:
>2009/3/11 Daniel James
>
> Hi Raffaele,
>
>I can't go in deep about debian packages accept/reject workflow and
>policy stuff but non-free repository should allow some compromise in
>these direction...
>
>
2009/3/11 Daniel James
> Hi Raffaele,
>
> I can't go in deep about debian packages accept/reject workflow and policy
>> stuff but non-free repository should allow some compromise in these
>> direction...
>>
>
> It wasn't about free versus non-free (for once), it was that Ardour
> developers were
Hi Raffaele,
I can't go in deep about debian packages accept/reject workflow and
policy stuff but non-free repository should allow some compromise in
these direction...
It wasn't about free versus non-free (for once), it was that Ardour
developers were forced to embedded their own forked ver
2009/3/11 Daniel James
> Hi Raffaele,
>
> "Debian does not support multimedia desktop/laptop users 'out of the
>> box'."
>> If you all were coding for debian packages probably they will ;-)
>>
>
> We do, but what the Debian project chooses to make a priority is not under
> the control of the sma
Daniel James wrote:
Hi Raffaele,
"Debian does not support multimedia desktop/laptop users 'out of the
box'."
If you all were coding for debian packages probably they will ;-)
We do, but what the Debian project chooses to make a priority is not
under the control of the small multimedia packa
Hi Raffaele,
"Debian does not support multimedia desktop/laptop users 'out of the box'."
If you all were coding for debian packages probably they will ;-)
We do, but what the Debian project chooses to make a priority is not
under the control of the small multimedia packaging team. For example
2009/3/11 Daniel James
> Hi Raffaele,
>
> Why only in 64studio and not in plain Debian?
>>
>
> maybe if they did it on debian nobody would pick up 64 studio anymore...
>>
>
> We have been contributing to Debian for years. The reason for a specialist
> distribution is that official Debian doe
Hi Raffaele,
Why only in 64studio and not in plain Debian?
maybe if they did it on debian nobody would pick up 64
studio anymore...
We have been contributing to Debian for years. The reason for a
specialist distribution is that official Debian does not support
multimedia desktop/lapto
2009/3/10 Grammostola Rosea
> Daniel James wrote:
>
>> Hi Adrian,
>>
>> - FFADO: libfreebob is outdated, there are so many users in #ffado
>>>asking for FFADO packages.
>>>
>>
>> We're aiming to have this package in 64 Studio 3.0, we also need to change
>> our 2.6.29-rc4 kernel to support t
On Tue, Mar 10, 2009 at 03:30:43PM +, Daniel James wrote:
> Hi Adrian,
Hi!
> > - FFADO: libfreebob is outdated, there are so many users in #ffado
> >asking for FFADO packages.
> We're aiming to have this package in 64 Studio 3.0, we also need to
> change our 2.6.29-rc4 kernel to suppor
On Tue, Mar 10, 2009 at 06:21:28PM +0100, Grammostola Rosea wrote:
> And what about the FFADO packages? I think they can hit Debian right?
Absolutely. As suggested, grabbing them from Ubuntu would be a first
approach.
Cheerio
--
mail: a...@thur.de http://adi.thur.de PGP/GPG: key via
Daniel James wrote:
Hi Rosea,
- FFADO: libfreebob is outdated, there are so many users in #ffado
asking for FFADO packages.
We're aiming to have this package in 64 Studio 3.0, we also need to
change our 2.6.29-rc4 kernel to support the old firewire stack though.
Why only in 64studio
Hi Rosea,
- FFADO: libfreebob is outdated, there are so many users in #ffado
asking for FFADO packages.
We're aiming to have this package in 64 Studio 3.0, we also need to
change our 2.6.29-rc4 kernel to support the old firewire stack though.
Why only in 64studio and not in plain Debi
Daniel James wrote:
Hi Adrian,
- FFADO: libfreebob is outdated, there are so many users in #ffado
asking for FFADO packages.
We're aiming to have this package in 64 Studio 3.0, we also need to
change our 2.6.29-rc4 kernel to support the old firewire stack though.
Why only in 64studio
Hi Adrian,
- FFADO: libfreebob is outdated, there are so many users in #ffado
asking for FFADO packages.
We're aiming to have this package in 64 Studio 3.0, we also need to
change our 2.6.29-rc4 kernel to support the old firewire stack though.
New package: http://calf.sf.net. IMHO,
Hi!
I saw a "We need more people" mail on LAD, that's why I checked the
wiki, subscribed to this list and seeked through the bug list.
I feel I could help Debian, especially with pro-audio stuff. I'm doing
my PhD thesis in computer science, run a small recording studio (still
based on Win32), pla
24 matches
Mail list logo
