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: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1216055#c15[https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1216055#c15] 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 objectives: - 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 -- 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] https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/music_______________________________________________ music mailing list music@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/music[https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/music] _______________________________________________ music mailing list music@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/music
