[Fedora-music-list] ardour 2.4 was out

[Greg DeKoenigsberg]

On Wed, 9 Apr 2008, Dave Jones wrote:

> Would it help any if somone else stepped up and started maintaining analogs
> of ccrma packages in 'core' ?  I'd probably be interested in finding time
> to maintain a few of them myself if this made peoples lives easier.
> I've held off from proposing package reviews of several apps (not just
> music apps) because someone is maintaining rpms in another repo

I'm sure it would.

> > It may well be that CCRMA should continue to be fully independent, but
> > have a much stronger base of Fedora packages to draw from, and Nando, when
> > you see fit, you can supersede a Fedora package with a newer package in
> > CCRMA.  That would be a pretty good outcome, too.
>
> I'm beginning to wonder if 3rd party repos are doing us more harm than 
> good in the long run. The reason I bring this up is because after 
> several discussions with people yesterday here at the Linux Foundation 
> collaboration summit, I heard things like..
>
> "I prefer ubuntu/debian because it has more packages."
> "true, but what packages are you missing from Fedora?"
> "xyz"
> "Oh, we have that packaged but it's in repo z"
>
> A lot of users won't go hunting for extra repositories. If it isn't in 
> the repos that Fedora comes bundled with, to them, it doesn't exist in 
> Fedora.

We just need to assess the reasons for these separations.  Most of these 
issues have to do with The Repo That Must Not Be Named, and that's a 
difficult problem to solve.

> And for those that are aware of 3rd party repos, there seems to be a 
> reluctance to adding them to avoid the infamous "rpm hell" with 
> conflicting deps between repos.

Yeah.  That is a problem, yes.

> I'm sure this small sample of users isn't representative, but it's 
> definitly holding some users back.  Personally, I know I've given up 
> after finding something isn't packaged in Fedora on many occasions, and 
> it pains me to say it, but it's sometimes been quicker/easier to go 
> download a binary of the same opensource app for my mac than it is to 
> get the same thing running under Fedora.

SPLITTER!

> The apps shouldn't pose too much of a problem to get merged, but I'm 
> wondering how things like jack fit into the new world order of 
> pulseaudio. I guess Nando already has to deal with this somehow, so 
> maybe it's already a solved problem, but things like this and the kernel 
> are the only technical hurdles afaics?
>
> In my utopian world, I'd love to see ccrma just become a spin of
> the main fedora. Allowing people who want a more multi-purpose
> install to also install those same packages without the hassle
> of additional repos.

This has always been, and continues to be, my end goal.  In Nando's case, 
and doubtless in other cases, it's a matter of "swallowing the pig whole," 
so to speak.  Until we can provide/demonstrate Nando enough value in the 
Fedora process to incur the switching cost, he will (rightly) do things 
the way he needs to do them to keep moving forward.

So the first step, methinks, is to find more packagers.  Nando, if you can 
actually get some numbers on how many packages are unique to CCRMA, that 
would be a great start.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I've got a couple of potential packagers I'm 
going to chase down.  :)

--g

-- 
Greg DeKoenigsberg
Community Development Manager
Red Hat, Inc. :: 1-919-754-4255
"To whomsoever much hath been given...
...from him much shall be asked"