On Fri, May 8, 2015 at 10:55 AM Martin Tarenskeen <m.tarenskeen@zonnet.nl> wrote:

On Fri, 8 May 2015, Jonathan Underwood wrote:

>> - Move version 2 to its own ardour2 package. This would get it
>> re-reviewed but I guess that's a mere formality.
>> - Reuse the ardour package as a meta-package which simply requires the
>> latest versioned package.
>> - Retire ardour3.
>>
>> What do you think?
>
>
> I think retiring ardour3 at this point is too early - I for one am
> still adjusting to the ardour4 interface.


There should be some consistency in the naming and versioning of packages.
A crazy example is rosegarden: Now version 14.02 and the name is ...
rosegarden4 :-)

--

MT

_______________________________________________
music mailing list
music@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/music