On Fri, 2015-05-08 at 18:43 +0100, Jonathan Underwood wrote:
> Sent: Friday, May 08, 2015 at 11:09 AM
> I'd do it like this (in Fedora >= 22):
> - 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.
my plan is to only retire it in not yet released Fedora versions, for
the reasons you outlined.
Also, IIUC, you propose to simply add a Provides: ardour to the
ardourN package to ensure that a dnf install ardour always installs
the latest ardour package. The problem is that that will break for
anyone currently with the current ardour (i.e.. ardour 2) package
installed. After switching the package names as you suggest, when that
person runs a dnf update, they'll get ardour4 installed as an update
to their old ardour package (which contained ardour 2). They'd then
need to do a dnf install adrdour2 (and optionally dnf remove ardour).
Perhaps this isn't too much of an inconvenience, but I thought I
should flag it.
It wouldn't work that way, only if ardour4 obsoleted ardour < 2.8.16-16
in our case. A mere Provides wouldn't do that.
Thanks for working on packaging ardour, I for one am very grateful.
Nils Philippsen "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase
Red Hat a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty
nils(a)redhat.com nor Safety." -- Benjamin Franklin, 1759
PGP fingerprint: C4A8 9474 5C4C ADE3 2B8F 656D 47D8 9B65 6951 3011