[PlanetCCRMA] [Fedora-music-list] pulseaudio-1.1-3
simon.lewis at slnet-online.de
Mon Jan 2 02:01:37 PST 2012
Many thanks for your response.
Yes, the kernel updates in fc15 are very positive and in terms of device
support the 3.1.x (aka 2.6.41.x) is very good.
My main grip is with the fixed releases as there always comes a point
when I have no choice but to upgrade to a newer fedora release because I
need a particular (new) feature in an application that will not build
against the out-dated libraries in the currently installed released, and
the libraries cannot be updated because of soname/sonumber bumps, etc..
Just to give an example, I have just received notification from the
digikam developers that the mpeg video export has been reintroduced
after 2 years absence (whilst digikam was rebuilt against kde4).
Unfortunately digikam 2.4 cannot be built against the KDE 4.6.x
The preupgrade package/route has proved to work well over the years...
but there are always a number of apps that I need to build from scratch
and configuration options that I need to set after upgrading to get a
working system to my requirements. I don't have that much spare time as
I would like to concentrate on Linux and usually need 3-4 months after a
new fedora release before I can be creative/productive again. Thus from
a user point of view a rolling update is very attractive. Doubling up
computers to bridge the gap is not a financial option.
Does fedora need more packagers, or should all options to reduce the
workload be investigated? Is maintaining several releases or just one
rolling release cause more work? I can understand fixed releases for
enterprise systems whereby a large number of proprietary applications
(e.g. CAD/CMS systems) are installed, but this is not the fedora user base.
Best regards, Simon
Am 01.01.2012 22:57, schrieb Christopher Antila:
> On 01/01/2012 05:14 AM, Simon Lewis wrote:
>> The biggest contribution that the Fedora-music team can make is too
>> persuade the fedora-core team to introduce a rolling update release aka
>> openSUSE Tumbelweed and Linux Mint. The multimedia apps (on linux) are
>> bleeding edge whereby the developers of the most interesting apps are
>> willing to make bug fixes and introduce new features quickly.
>> Unfortunately, these improvements upstream never filter down to the
>> fedora repos mostly because there are too few fedora packagers. A single
>> rolling release with snapshot releases for marketing purposes would meet
>> fedora aims for an actual distribution and significantly reduce the work
> I used to be a supporter of the rolling-release idea, but it seems to
> me that Fedora already strikes a good balance. As you noted, it all
> comes down to the initiative and number of package maintainers.
> Some packages, such as the kernel, are generally updated when new
> upstream versions are ready. More often than not, it seems, both of
> the currently-maintained Fedora releases are running or are about to
> run the same kernel version. Even KDE has generally followed this
> update pattern, although it was broken with Fedora 15 and 16, which
> have KDE 4.6 and 4.7, respectively.
> All I'm really saying is that convincing everybody to switch to a
> rolling release is going to be more effort than it's worth, because
> Fedora already accepts major version updates to packages in the same
> OS release cycle. As you noted, what we need is more packagers.
> music mailing list
> music at lists.fedoraproject.org
More information about the PlanetCCRMA