> Sent: Friday, May 08, 2015 at 11:09 AM > 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? I think retiring ardour3 at this point is too early - I for one am still adjusting to the ardour4 interface. Also, IIUC, you propose to simply add a Provides: ardour to the latest ardourN package to ensure that a dnf install ardour always installs the latest ardour package. The problem is that that will break for anyone currently with the current ardour (i.e.. ardour 2) package installed. After switching the package names as you suggest, when that person runs a dnf update, they'll get ardour4 installed as an update to their old ardour package (which contained ardour 2). They'd then need to do a dnf install adrdour2 (and optionally dnf remove ardour). Perhaps this isn't too much of an inconvenience, but I thought I should flag it. Thanks for working on packaging ardour, I for one am very grateful. Jonathan _______________________________________________ music mailing list music@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/music
