From: Hans K. <hki...@ma...> - 2002-10-29 04:12:49
|
[I've just realized JACK et al. isn't enabled by default- give the RPM an hour or so to rebuild with jack actually enabled this time : )] > Yeah. Is the RPM somewhere? > > B I've put up an RPM built on Mandrake 8.2 with a stripped-down set of requirements (LADSPA, JACK, and the RPM automatic requirements, which should actually get all of the required libraries without fussing about distro-specific package names) here: http://www.languagelibrary.org/rosegarden-4-0.8-2mdk.i586.rpm but it's not a very good solution because of bandwidth limitations there. Let me know what happens : ), and/or if you're actually running 9.0 (i.e. gcc 3.2). Hans -- __________________________________________________________ Sign-up for your own FREE Personalized E-mail at Mail.com http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup |
From: Hans K. <hki...@ma...> - 2002-10-29 11:18:22
|
RG could go in KDE CVS... : ) more easily submit to them than to a commercial company and other people would worry about distro-specific packaging. Their warnings about what happens when you "join" sound ghastly : ) For submitting to Mandrake Cooker, see: http://www.linux-mandrake.com/en/frpmapps.php3 BUT they want signed source RPMs, neither of which applies to the current one. What do you think about a bug in SF that tracks bothering distro maintainers? Could you test the JACK support and/or re-download? I think (actually, positive) you got the first upload. (my fault) Thanks again, Hans -- __________________________________________________________ Sign-up for your own FREE Personalized E-mail at Mail.com http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup |
From: Richard B. <bo...@bo...> - 2002-10-30 08:47:45
|
On Tuesday 29 October 2002 10:30, Hans Kieserman wrote: > RG could go in KDE CVS... : ) more easily submit to them than to a > commercial company and other people would worry about distro-specific > packaging. Their warnings about what happens when you "join" sound > ghastly : ) KDE CVS eh? Could be interesting. It might be possible to just keep our CVS but throw across a set of source every time we have a release. > For submitting to Mandrake Cooker, see: > http://www.linux-mandrake.com/en/frpmapps.php3 > BUT they want signed source RPMs, neither of which applies to the > current one. We can wait until the next release for that one then. > What do you think about a bug in SF that tracks bothering distro > maintainers? Not a bad idea. > Could you test the JACK support and/or re-download? I think > (actually, positive) you got the first upload. (my fault) I presume Guillaume will do the testing at some point. I'll sit here twiddling my thumbs for a bit. B |
From: Chris C. <ca...@al...> - 2002-10-30 10:07:54
|
Richard Bown wrote: > KDE CVS eh? Could be interesting. I would prefer not to be "part of KDE" (this is an application in its own right and a package in its own right, it just happens to use the KDE libraries) and I would prefer not to be tied to KDE release schedules. IMO a move to be distributed along with KDE would be an admission that distributing "third-party" applications that rely on KDE is just too difficult to bother with, and that would be a sad thing. Chris |
From: Guillaume L. <gla...@te...> - 2002-10-30 10:14:13
|
On Wednesday 30 October 2002 11:07, Chris Cannam wrote: > Richard Bown wrote: > > KDE CVS eh? Could be interesting. > > I would prefer not to be "part of KDE" (this is an application > in its own right and a package in its own right, it just happens > to use the KDE libraries) and I would prefer not to be tied to > KDE release schedules. There's a module in KDE cvs for such cases (kdenonbeta). That said, I don't= =20 think it's worth the hassle. =2D-=20 Guillaume http://www.telegraph-road.org |
From: Guillaume L. <gla...@te...> - 2002-11-03 17:45:16
|
On Wednesday 30 October 2002 10:49, Richard Bown wrote: > I presume Guillaume will do the testing at some point. I'll sit here > twiddling my thumbs for a bit. I probably will at some point, but right now it's not very easy. The rpm requires KDE (I presume, if it doesn't it's a bug), and I don't have it installed through rpm, I compile my own. So to install it I'd have to use --nodeps, which rather breaks the purpose of the testing :-). -- Guillaume. http://www.telegraph-road.org |
From: Richard B. <bo...@bo...> - 2002-10-31 08:37:59
|
On Tuesday 29 October 2002 10:30, Hans Kieserman wrote: > Could you test the JACK support and/or re-download? I think > (actually, positive) you got the first upload. (my fault) I've uploaded the new RPM to sourceforge now (it's been a couple of days and no complaints) and I've changed the link on the website download page. The page will need a push. B |
From: Hans K. <hki...@ma...> - 2002-10-30 14:34:39
|
> IMO a move to be distributed along with KDE would be an admission > that distributing "third-party" applications that rely on KDE is > just too difficult to bother with, and that would be a sad thing. The other way to look at it is free compilation for various platforms by people who've done it before, free distribution (more exposure), etc. But yes, it's probably not worth it, not least from the loss of freedom point. (free != free : )) Hans -- __________________________________________________________ Sign-up for your own FREE Personalized E-mail at Mail.com http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup |
From: Richard B. <bo...@bo...> - 2002-10-29 08:29:28
|
On Tuesday 29 October 2002 03:44, Hans Kieserman wrote: > http://www.languagelibrary.org/rosegarden-4-0.8-2mdk.i586.rpm Cool. > but it's not a very good solution because of bandwidth limitations > there. Shall we put it somewhere else then? I've uploaded it to bownie.com: http://www.bownie.com/rosegarden/rosegarden-4-0.8-2mdk.i586.rpm and modified the download page of the RG website. Might as well get as many people as possible trying it out unless you object? Perhaps Chris could repush the download page at some point? BTW could you check that the RPM is as accessible as it should be - my hosting people have been mucking my .htaccess file about and I'm not convinced. BTW 2, who at Mandrake can we prod to get them to package us officially or will they just want to work from our spec file? BTW 3, on an unrelated note I'm getting the pictures back with the expo in today so I'll knock up a little page on that too soon. B |
From: Chris C. <ca...@al...> - 2002-10-29 09:09:08
|
Richard Bown wrote: > could you check that > the RPM is as accessible as it should be - my hosting people have been > mucking my .htaccess file about and I'm not convinced. It has MIME type audio/x-pn-realaudio-plugin, which ain't much good. Downloads okay though. Chris |
From: Guillaume L. <gla...@te...> - 2002-10-29 09:28:58
|
On Tuesday 29 October 2002 09:31, Richard Bown wrote: > > but it's not a very good solution because of bandwidth limitations > > there. > > Shall we put it somewhere else then? I've uploaded it to bownie.com: Why not sforge ? =2D-=20 Guillaume http://www.telegraph-road.org |
From: Richard B. <bo...@bo...> - 2002-10-29 09:37:18
|
On Tuesday 29 October 2002 09:28, Guillaume Laurent wrote: > > Shall we put it somewhere else then? I've uploaded it to > > bownie.com: > > Why not sforge ? A very good point. B |
From: Chris C. <ca...@al...> - 2002-10-29 09:05:52
|
Hans Kieserman wrote: > [I've just realized JACK et al. isn't enabled by default Yeah, this is bug 624142. https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&aid=624142&group_id=4932&atid=104932 Feel like fixing it? (I have actually assigned a couple of other low-priority bugs to you, Hans. Don't know whether you'd noticed...) Chris |