https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1216055 Be <be.0@xxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |be.0@xxxxxxx --- Comment #15 from Be <be.0@xxxxxxx> --- If users should start new sessions with Arduour 4, then I think this package should be called 'ardour' and the current 'ardour' (2) should be renamed 'ardour2' if kept in Fedora. Users are going to expect the latest version of ardour to be installed when they install the package called 'ardour'. When I first tried Ardour around a year ago, I thought Ardour 2 was the latest version for a while until I explored the Ardour website and realized there was a separate package in Fedora called 'ardour3'. Is it really necessary to retain Ardour 2 and 3 in Fedora anyway? Because Ardour 4 was released recently, retaining Ardour 3 would make sense because users are fairly likely to have Ardour 3 sessions that they want to work with. Are there many users who still actively work on Ardour 2 sessions? Is it worth having this awkward package naming situation to retain backwards compatibility with software that has been outdated for years? To me, that doesn't seem very well in line with Fedora's foundation value of "First". -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review