https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2137159 --- Comment #5 from Nils Philippsen <nphilipp@xxxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Mads Kiilerich from comment #3) > (In reply to Nils Philippsen from comment #1) > > NB^2: The reason for having a separate package for this new version is so > > people can choose which version of Ardour to use for existing and new > > projects. > > As mentioned in https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/ardour6/pull-request/5 > (currently offline): > > I think that putting the first part for the version number in the package > name is a bad idea. The package name should just be "ardour". I think I remember we talked about this before, yeah. The naming is done this way according to the guidelines for the reasons I’ll go into below: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Naming/#multiple > * Ardour doesn't use semantic versioning. The step from 6.9 to 7.0 is not > necessarily bigger than the step from 7.0 to 7.1 . Allowing side-by-side > installation only when the first number changes will in general miss the > point and just "work" randomly. Not using semantic versioning doesn’t preclude incompatible breaks between one major version and the next though… > * That is not how we do in Fedora. Unless there are very good reasons, we > package the latest and greatest version of end user software. We do for > example not have two versions of for example OpenOffice, Firefox, GIMP, or > Inkscape. It is unclear why this particular package needs it, and what > problem this is solving. …which is precisely what happened from version 2 to 3 and why we agreed on this scheme in a discussion on the (now largely defunct) fedora-music mailing list (i.e. this is why we did it that way in Fedora): Version 3 changed some internals in a way that it couldn’t fully interpret version 2 projects. So while version 3 would attempt to upgrade version 2 projects, any project utilizing the affected functionality would be converted effectively incurring data loss. Aside from the glitch Guido mentioned, another (minor) reason was significant changes in the UI which I believe was a hangup for some users going from version 3 to 4. Anyway, the scheme was put in place so we would be free in the future to introduce new major versions with potentially breaking changes (functionality- or UI-wise) and give people a transition period in which they can adapt their workflows. For reference, here's the discussion on the mailing list: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/music/2015-May/002005.html > * Ardour 7 can read (and upgrade) Ardour 6 projects. There is no particular > good reason these two versions should be installed side-by-side. Supporting > evidence: Upstream no longer makes Ardour 6 (easily) available for download. This is all good in hindsight, but as I understand it, there are no guarantees that this will be the case for future major versions. > * Having the version number in the package does that a trivial update to a > new major version requires a new package review, for no good reason. That > can potentially delay upgrades and put extra load on the review process. Having to review a new major version as a package is obviously the downside of this scheme, but in my opinion it’s a relatively small price to pay (and nets us spec files with less accumulated cruft as a side effect). > * Having two versions side by side raise tricky upgrade questions. The > general user experience should of course be that Ardour automatically gets > upgraded to Ardour 7 ... or at least that it is installed automatically so > it is available for launch, next to Ardour 6. This spec doesn't handle that > at all. I’m open to improving things in that area. For instance, once things with version 7 have settled a little without breakage (say with 7.1 or 7.2), we can let it obsolete the ardour6 package. Making it install itself automatically side-by-side could be done as well, it's just a little bit more involved: we’d need a new ardour6 package and both it and ardour7 would obsolete the old ardour6 version-release (plus, ardour6 should then probably get a modified app icon so people can distinguish them in the list of apps). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2137159 _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list -- package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
