https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2137159 --- Comment #8 from Nils Philippsen <nphilipp@xxxxxxxxxx> --- Another case in point of having separate packages for different major versions is the changes in how tempo maps are implemented in 7.x vs. 6.x -- see https://tracker.ardour.org/view.php?id=9030#c26705 > This was sort of a deliberate decision. The structure of the tempo map in 7.0 is > radically different, and for now we opted to not correctly support 6.x sessions > with the first tempo marker at 0. > > However, we may be able to fix this at some point. > > You should use 6.9 to continue working on such sessions. (In reply to Guido Aulisi from comment #7) > Some items need extra investigation: > > Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. > This is clearly not true, but we need to ship GPLv3 license file Yeah, that's just due to how the licenses of Ardour itself and bundled code are combined. > Large data in /usr/share/ardour7 > Can we split it to a no arch sub package? Sure! > Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. > I think this is due to autospec Yes, it is. -- 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
