<div dir="ltr"><a href="http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Multiple_packages_with_the_same_base_name">Looking at the wiki guide the way suggested is to : </a><br><br><div>The most current version: ardour<br><div>Previous version names: ardour2 (or ardour3.5) </div><div><br></div><div>This would differ from having ardour be a meta package. </div><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, May 8, 2015 at 10:55 AM Martin Tarenskeen <<a href="mailto:m.tarenskeen@zonnet.nl">m.tarenskeen@zonnet.nl</a>> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><br>
<br>
On Fri, 8 May 2015, Jonathan Underwood wrote:<br>
<br>
>> - Move version 2 to its own ardour2 package. This would get it<br>
>> re-reviewed but I guess that's a mere formality.<br>
>> - Reuse the ardour package as a meta-package which simply requires the<br>
>> latest versioned package.<br>
>> - Retire ardour3.<br>
>><br>
>> What do you think?<br>
><br>
><br>
> I think retiring ardour3 at this point is too early - I for one am<br>
> still adjusting to the ardour4 interface.<br>
<br>
<br>
There should be some consistency in the naming and versioning of packages.<br>
A crazy example is rosegarden: Now version 14.02 and the name is ...<br>
rosegarden4 :-)<br>
<br>
--<br>
<br>
MT<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
music mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:music@lists.fedoraproject.org" target="_blank">music@lists.fedoraproject.org</a><br>
<a href="https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/music" target="_blank">https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/music</a></blockquote></div></div></div>