On 10/11/14 20:04, Brian Monroe wrote:
Can someone enlighten me why we forked these packages with the naming scheme this way? I know that the licensing changed from the version 2 and version 3 releases and caused us to package them separately, but it seems to me like it's backwards. Is there a fedora policy that would prohibit us from packaging ardour3 under the package name ardour and ardour ver 2 under ardour2. I can see this as being a potentially sore spot for new users to try to install Ardour with "yum install ardour" and being disappointed and or confused with why Fedora is a whole version behind. Or bewildered when they start using the program and it doesn't look right and the menus are all wrong according to the website.
We are packaging both because we need to support projects created by ardour 2. The reverse of your argument equally applies here ;)
We could have renamed the previous ardour package but to do so requires a new package review and is not really worth the effort. In time the older package will become obsolete and installing "ardour" will indeed provide ardour3.
_______________________________________________ music mailing list music@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/music
