Re: Naming of Ardour packages

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


That sounds like the most reasonable solution to me. Can we make this happen for Fedora 22 or is it too late for that?

Sent: Friday, May 08, 2015 at 11:09 AM
From: "Brian Monroe" <briancmonroe@xxxxxxxxx>
To: "Nils Philippsen" <nils@xxxxxxxxxx>, music@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re:  Naming of Ardour packages
+1 to your plan. I spent a hours trying to figure out why things were wrong in F19 when I did yum install ardour. I think people expect that to get them the most recent package. 
On Fri, May 8, 2015, 8:54 AM Nils Philippsen <nils@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:Hi all,

with the advent of Ardour version 4, the question came up why the oldest
available version 2 is packaged as "ardour" rather than the latest one:[]

The reason for keeping version 2 around is that while later versions can
migrate old sessions, some information is lost in the process. Ardour
version 3 became ardour3 so people could install both versions 2 and 3
side-by-side, and that the new package got reviewed instead of the old
one (which would have been the case had I submitted an ardour2 package
for review). In that vein I packaged version 4 as ardour4, also because
ardour3-4.0.0 would have looked plain silly (despite that the session
files are compatible between versions 3 and 4) and introducing a new
major version replacing the old one with a substantially changed
look-and-feel in an existing Fedora release is a big no-no.

The question posed in the ardour4 review ticket is valid though, so I'd
like to come up with a scheme for the future that achieves these

- Installing "ardour" will always get you the latest available version
(on a Fedora release -- e.g. F-20 won't get version 4 because the JACK
package is too old).
- Every major version gets its own package so side-by-side installs are
possible, especially for occasions where the session format changes
(like v2 -> v3).
- Versions which are session-compatible with newer versions get retired
from Fedora releases that aren't stable yet (e.g. v3 because the session
format is the same as with v4).

I'd do it like this (in Fedora >= 22):

- Move version 2 to its own ardour2 package. This would get it
re-reviewed but I guess that's a mere formality.
- Reuse the ardour package as a meta-package which simply requires the
latest versioned package.
- Retire ardour3.

What do you think?

Nils Philippsen      "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase
Red Hat               a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty
nils@xxxxxxxxxx[nils@xxxxxxxxxx]       nor Safety."  --  Benjamin Franklin, 1759
PGP fingerprint:      C4A8 9474 5C4C ADE3 2B8F  656D 47D8 9B65 6951 3011

music mailing list
music@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx[music@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] music mailing list music@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx[]
music mailing list

[Index of Archives]     [Linux Audio Users]     [ALSA Users]     [Fedora Development]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora Users]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]

  Powered by Linux