[15:00] hi abogani [15:00] abogani: you there? [15:00] falktx: yes [15:01] abogani: i have a favour to ask you [15:01] abogani: can you update the lucid lowlatency kernel on your ppa? [15:01] it's the default kernel on my kxstudio distro [15:02] falktx: As reported to all our Studio mailing-list lowlatency lucid is dropped. [15:02] abogani: maybe just a last update? [15:02] please..? [15:04] falktx: No I can't. I have already delete all files. I would happy to help you but there is no way. Sorry [15:04] ah, ok [15:04] i'm not sure about using the realtime kernel as default [15:04] falktx: Could you inform me when you use my package? So I avoid to delete these without alert you. [15:05] falktx: .33 seems a lot stable, at me at least [15:06] abogani: usually I copy your packages into my PPA, the version I now have is 2.6.32-24.42 [15:06] I guess I'll be back to generic [15:07] falktx: Yes an other good choise. [15:07] choice [15:10] abogani: so the lowlatency kernel will be dropped for good? [15:13] abogani: what about natty? will you make lowlatency for it or it's not decided yet? [15:18] falktx: More information regarding kernels can be found on: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/RealTime [15:19] * falktx reads [15:22] ok [15:48] hey I just found AutoStatic in IRC [15:48] he's coming here [15:49] hey AutoStatic [15:49] Hi [15:50] me and AutoStatic were discussing about the PPA [15:52] from what I understand, this is the official us dev team: https://launchpad.net/~ubuntustudio-dev [15:52] and this is the PPA for it - https://launchpad.net/~ubuntustudio-dev/+archive/ppa [15:54] to all devs here: What is the best choice for a new studio PPA: [15:54] 1 - the official ubuntustudio-dev [15:54] 2 - a new team [15:54] ? [15:55] What type of packages should go into that new PPA? [15:55] A new studio PPA? What for? [15:55] For Ubuntu Studio [15:56] atm there are multiple multimedia PPA's [15:56] I mean, what apps should go there, and why couldn't they go into the official repos? [15:56] philip5, falktx, tangostudio etc [15:57] astraljava: for example wineasio and VSTs [15:57] astraljava: also svn builds of ardour3.0, hydrogen, etc [15:57] Apps that are not in Debian testing or the official repo's [15:57] AutoStatic: maybe we should split into 2 ppas, 1 stable and 1 testing [15:57] So not even necessarily svn builds [15:58] Yes, good idea [15:58] falktx: Okay. If Ubuntu Studio devs are supposed to offer support for them, it would make sense for them to be in ubuntustudio-dev PPA. And one PPA can offer several repositories. [16:00] The best thing should be: Create a PPA into ubuntustudio. Place there all stable packages. Use the ubuntustudio-dev's PPA for development packages (like svn builds). [16:00] IMHO obviously :-) [16:00] seems good to me [16:01] but afaik, everyone is allowed to be part of the ubuntustudio team [16:02] Yeah, the idea of providing support for such packages make me cringe a bit. :) [16:02] +s [16:02] so maybe it could be better if the team is kinda not official [16:03] now orries I think astraljava [16:03] no worries I mean [16:04] Are there licensing issues why some of the packages couldn't go to official repos? [16:04] AutoStatic: the way I currently build svn packages, they dont conflict with the stable ones [16:04] AutoStatic: maybe they should go too into the stable ppa too, and leave the test ppa just for testing of new packages [16:05] I haven't build that much of those kind of packages [16:05] astraljava: most packages are ok [16:05] I second that, i don't foresee any big support issues [16:05] astraljava: but VSTs require non-free headers to compile [16:05] falktx: Gotcha. [16:05] astraljava: my way of doing it is to compile them myself and only include the source in the package [16:06] astraljava: I never touch the non-free headers at anytime in the PPA [16:06] Ok. [16:08] astraljava: here's an example of restricted package - https://launchpad.net/~falk-t-j/+archive/lucid/+sourcepub/1343380/+listing-archive-extra [16:08] falktx: with a good set-up on your won machine one doesn't really need a test PPA I think [16:09] astraljava: all source is included, but not the non-free header [16:09] astraljava: the folder 'build' contains the binary I compiled [16:09] astraljava: please check it and tell me if this should be ok [16:09] AutoStatic: you too please [16:10] AutoStatic: for testing I guess I could just use my own testing PPA [16:11] just a sec [16:14] Looks good to me [16:15] this is the method I use for VSTs too [16:15] I spoke to the launchpad guys about this too, they said it was ok [16:16] But isn't wieasio a lib? [16:16] wineasio [16:17] falktx: I'm not an expert on these matters, but IMO that's fine. [16:17] AutoStatic: yes, it goes to /usr/lib/wine [16:18] AutoStatic: but it uses ASIO, non-free stuff from the Windows world... [16:18] astraljava: thanks [16:19] Yes I know falktx, but I was hinting at the fact that it seems to be packaged as a single binary while it is actually a library [16:19] But then I'm not a packaging expert [16:20] AutoStatic: ah, that [16:20] That will come when we start packaging for Natty [16:20] ;) [16:20] AutoStatic: everyone was using the name 'wineasio' for the package, so I just continue the tradition [16:20] btw, I also have an external repo for really non-free stuff (closed source apps), these I know can't be on launchpad [16:22] I don't mean the package name but apparently it's created with dh_make -s instead of dh_make -l [16:22] Nah, letś not go into details [16:22] It works :) [16:23] AutoStatic: what is the diff between '-s' and '-l' ? [16:24] -s = single binary and -l = library [16:24] I think package managers rely on this too [16:25] Synaptic - Sections [16:25] wineasio is now in sound while it shoudl be in libraries [16:25] I think [16:26] hm... not sure [16:26] anyway, it's not a big issue [16:26] Nope [16:26] That kind of stuff is debatable [16:26] AutoStatic: when we make a PPA, you can easily fix it if you want [16:28] Yes, but we'll see [16:28] so how should we name the team? [16:28] It's still all a bit vague [16:30] Ok, gotta go [18:48] i realize that autostatic and falktx are not here but i wanted to add my opinion to this as well [18:49] i would like to try to avoid implying that the ubuntu studio developer team would be responsible for maintaining or responsible for any packages in falktx/autostatic's group PPA [18:50] perhaps calling the team "Ubuntu Studio Packaging Team" with a clear explanation that this is not part of the official Ubuntu Studio Dev team [18:51] also mentioning that the purpose of the team is to package applications that cannot be in the official repositories due to licensing or too experimental as well [18:52] hopefully falktx and autostatic can also focus on getting packages into the repos when possible, rather than take the quick satisfaction of putting everything into a PPA [18:53] we will get much longer benefits if packages that *can* go into the repos actually see the work to *get* them into the repos [18:53] preferrably into debian first though ;) [19:04] modules see ya [19:04] [20:33] < clave> hello? [19:05] sorry