Re: Please Improve Debian for Multimedia Production

[Felipe Sateler <fsateler@gmail.com>]

Andreas Tille wrote:

> On Sun, 22 Mar 2009, Jim wrote:
> 
>> Hi. I took the suggestion of one of the replies to your original post
>> and read about debian pure blends, and at first I thought demudi was a
>> pure blend;
> 
> At the time of writing the DeMuDi project *intended* to become 100%
> Debian - but this intend was not fullfilled finally.

The DeMuDi project is dead AFAIK. The 64studio spawned from it, and can't be a
pure blend. Actually the demudi team merged with the Debian Multimedia
Maintainers, so we now work together. I would suggest removing it from the
blends list (although the section on why demudi/64studio couldn't be a blend is
useful to highlight that blends are _in_ Debian).

> 
>> it's listed as one of the projects but is not actually a
>> pure blend, which I guess means they might have updated apps and
>> specifically compiled kernels to support various pro audio needs.
> 
> Yes, DeMuDi does not fall under the definition of a Blend.  But
> this is no reason not to start a new effort inside Debian to
> support multimedia.

There is an effort to support multimedia, a merge of the 2 previous efforts.

After reading the documentation, I still don't know if a blend is useful for us.
Blends seem to be some kind of cooler tasks, is that true? For them to be
really useful there should be clearly defined use cases that justify creating
the metapackages and tasks, for which I'm afraid there aren't in the multimedia
world. Other than ardour or audacity, every multimedia user will probably use a
different set of tools for doing their work (ie, there are lots of alternative
software synthesizers/effects processors/whatever). If there is no such clear
set of tools, is there a point in creating a blend?

-- 

  Felipe Sateler