Ubuntu Studio packages good enough for Ubuntu?

I was testing apps from the various ubuntustudio packages and I came to the conclusion that even if Live CD space wasn't too big a problem (I was excluding packages with a JACK requirement but including those with just a libqt* dependency), most wouldn't be up to Ubuntu's default install standards.

Re: Ubuntu Studio packages good enough for Ubuntu?

Conrad Knauer wrote: > I was testing apps from the various ubuntustudio packages and I came > to the conclusion that even if Live CD space wasn't too big a problem > (I was excluding packages with a JACK requirement but including those > with just a libqt* dependency), most wouldn't be up to Ubuntu

Re: Ubuntu Studio packages good enough for Ubuntu?

On Dec 15, 2007 7:12 AM, Conrad Knauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > fontforge > That was included in Dapper, wasn't it? -- Mackenzie Morgan Linux User #432169 ACM Member #3445683 http://ubuntulinuxtipstricks.blogspot.com <-my blog

Package source and binary packages out of sync

In tracking down a bug in logjam, I discovered that the source and binary packages are out of sync in the repository in 7.10/gutsy. I reported this as bug 17622[1], but I'm concerned about how this could have happened (as it's almost certainly not a logjam bug). It looks like the binaries were ne

Re: Package source and binary packages out of sync

There are a few packages where this is the case. It was recently discussed on the forums. They said that for Aumix, the source in the repos works fine, but the binary is junk. Qemu was also mentioned. I think in Qemu's case the maintainer grabbed from a broken CVS and packaged that without test