On 21 December 2010 02:26, Paul Davis <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > i'm angry because i've said all the way through ardour3 development > that packaging of any kind doesn't make any sense. IIRC we've always been telling each other not to upload any buildscript of ardour3 to AUR, but share them via other means, eg. IRC. It was an understanding all archlinux/ardour3 users had at that time and for as long as I know (until now..or more precisely February which I wasn't aware of) there was no such package in the AUR. However, I believe that's flawed and more importantly, stupid. What we end up with in the end is some script that looks almost the same and does exactly the same thing, duplicated on almost every system that matters to ardour3 development. Even one of your most useful/prominent ardour/jack users (he was featured in an article not too long ago) uses buildscripts because: 1) They take care of dependencies 2) They automate svn routines 3) They automate build routines And all that in a nice, unaltered way. You surely don't want to bother your useful users with those headaches, because surely, you want them to _use_ ardour3 and provide valuable feedback. Argueing that, someone who doesn't want to go through those headaches is not fit enough to contribute to ardour3 development, is absurd at best. Which brings us to: > i'm upset that someone would give users a 2nd-rate experience by > making them think that they had received an "important" version of > ardour3 rather than just another svn commit that will be out of date > in a few hours. Our users are competent enough to understand the difference there - subconsciously. In fact, I believe that kind of thinking can only be attributed to new or casual users of FLOSS. Anyone who is capable of setting up an Arch Linux system is capable of using Subversion. Look at it this way: You would've received this query even if the user had resorted to manual methods of installation. A PKGBUILD is no different from a svn/wget script that prepares the local system, pulls upstream sources and does a build and an install run. Have a look: http://aur.archlinux.org/packages/ardour3-svn/ardour3-svn/PKGBUILD Surely, sharing that kind of script openly would not be against any kind of rule or ethic, nor would it be hampering ardour3 development any more than random support requests from uninformed users, regardless of platform. So just a warning pre/post-install would be good enough to prevent unwarranted queries like this. Which brings us to: On 21 December 2010 03:44, Paul Davis <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > I'm comfortable with that note. I just hope that people actually read it. As long as it requests attention, like a prompt for a yes or no, it will be read in most cases. Else, it's no different from not reading about ardour3 from upstream sources. While navigating to the following page: http://ardour.org/download_full I was able to get the SVN command for 3.0 without bothering myself with the details. If, after installing (let's assume someone helped me with the dependencies on Fedora), I were to face a crash, there would be nothing preventing me from asking a question on the list, forums or IRC. You can rest assured that Arch Linux users don't bother about "distributions". Software is only "packaged" because it's a necessary step to maintain a record and system sanity. You can't really refer to our packaging and compare it to, say, Fedora's packaging. We "package" almost everything, even our own custom, personal scripts. -- GPG/PGP ID: B42DDCAD _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-user mailing list Linux-audio-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
