[needs-packaging] rivendell
| Affects | Status | Importance | Assigned to | Milestone | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Debian |
New
|
Undecided
|
Unassigned | ||
| Ubuntu |
Confirmed
|
Wishlist
|
Unassigned | ||
Bug Description
Rivendell is a complete professional radio (webradio) broadcast automation solution, with facilities for the acquisition, management, scheduling and playout of audio content.
It has all of the features one would expect in a modern, fully-fledged radio automation system, including support for both PCM and MPEG audio encoding, full voicetracking and log customization as well as support for a wide variety of third party software and hardware.
As a robust, functionally complete digital audio system for broadcast radio applications, Rivendell uses industry standard components like Alsa, Jack, AudioScience HPI Driver Architecture and MySQL.
Rivendell is available under the GNU Public License.
Packages exists for Suse but not for debian-based distros (ubuntu, ubuntustudio)
Do not expect Rivendell to "just play" from the start. It is not a media player, but a powerful broadcasting platform. It has a slight learning curve, but the result is an app that I use exclusively as my play out platform for live shows.
Homepage: http://
| samuel cifuentes (samuel-cifuentes) wrote | #1 |
| description: | updated |
| description: | updated |
| description: | updated |
| Tree MendUs (tree-mendus-deactivatedaccount) wrote | #2 |
| samuel cifuentes (samuel-cifuentes) wrote Re: [Bug 258917] Re: [needs-packaging] rivendell | #3 |
| Alban Peignier (alban-peignier) wrote | #4 |
Hi Samuel and/or Frederick J. Henderson,
Can you explain why it is that the two package requests that were made 'before" this one, have been labeled as duplicates of this one? (even though this latest one adds no new information than has already been submitted)
How is it that you commented on #176278 on the 2008-08-19, having made this package request on the previous date of 2008-08-18, but have left it till 2008-11-09 to conclude that the previous requests are duplicates?
(NB - there may be time differences of up to 24 hours for international times??)
Frederick J. Henderson had marked #249657 as duplicate of #176278.
Then 8 minutes later removed that duplicate report and changed #249657 to be a duplicate of #258917.
And 1 minute after that set #176278 to also be a duplicate of #258917.
Has there been a change from the convention that the earliest or most informative, or up to date information is chosen as the the "main" request, and others made as duplicates?