[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Blends integration into the Debian Installer

Hi Ole,

Sorry for joining the party so late, and thanks so much for working on this.

On 05/25/2016 09:22 PM, Ole Streicher wrote:
> If you want to have them in the Debian Installer, you should either
> provide an "-all" package for each of them containing whatever you want
> to have installed by default, or provide a patch for
> debian-blends-tasks.desc. The latter would probably have the option to
> do locale stuff -- see the main .desc file and the tasksel
> documentation.

I can't speak for the whole Debian Multimedia Team, but I will ask them
to comment on the wishlist bug to gather opinions.

My first thoughts are that it is great to get the option at install-time
to set up Debian ready for multimedia work. However, as Andreas said for
d-Med, it it is a very rare user that will want to have all tasks
installed (e.g. to do music, video, graphics, animation, broadcasting
etc.). Normally they will just want to do one or two of those things.
Also, the blend tasks contain many different tools to do the same thing
(e.g. 3 or 4 different Digital Audio Workstations (DAWs)). Normally a
user will pick just one of them to work with.

I think Ubuntu Studio have it right with a default selection of tools,
and the Ubiquity plugin that allows you at install time to choose which
of the metapackages to install, and even which packages within those
metapackages to install or not.

In addition, for serious audio work you really need to have a pretty
special configuration with Pulseaudio (for normal desktop sounds)
configured to feed through JACK (for serious audio work) to avoid
constantly switching to make different applications work. And although
most low-latency/realtime patches have been accepted into the main
kernel, most other audio focussed distros use a tuned kernel image.

I will ask how the rest of the team feel, and go from there.



Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Reply to: