Hi Jonathan, On Fri, 2015-05-08 at 18:43 +0100, Jonathan Underwood wrote: > > 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. my plan is to only retire it in not yet released Fedora versions, for the reasons you outlined. > 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. It wouldn't work that way, only if ardour4 obsoleted ardour < 2.8.16-16 in our case. A mere Provides wouldn't do that. > Thanks for working on packaging ardour, I for one am very grateful. You're welcome, Nils -- Nils Philippsen "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase Red Hat a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nils@xxxxxxxxxx nor Safety." -- Benjamin Franklin, 1759 PGP fingerprint: C4A8 9474 5C4C ADE3 2B8F 656D 47D8 9B65 6951 3011 _______________________________________________ music mailing list music@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/music
