On Wed, 2007-05-02 at 13:32 -0700, Anthony Green wrote:
Fernando Lopez-Lezcano wrote:
> If we keep the "ardour" package name in Extras and transition that
> package to 2.x, how can Planet CCRMA be compatible with that? I can't do
> anything on my side, I think (the ardour2 packages have been out there
> for a while and are installed in machines all over the place). Would the
> package in Extras include some kind of Obsoletes:/Provides: for that? (I
> doubt it... :-)
We could definitely Obsolete the ardour2 package in a new ardour package.
> For something as crucial to a recording studio as Ardour I'd rather have
> both installed side by side and test 2.x until I'm comfortable that it
> is working fine. That's not possible if the package name is ardour,
True. In theory, both ccrma and fedora could provide upgrade paths from
the current ardour package. The planetccrma package would be an
"ardour0" package containing the 0.99.3 release which Obsoletes ardour,
and the fedora package would be a new "ardour" package which Obsoletes
the planetccrma ardour2 package. This may be a little more work but it...
a) enables parallel installs for planetccrma users
b) provides a natural, clean upgrade path for everybody
This is somewhat similar to how Fedora handles shipping older versions
of gcc in parallel with the system compiler. The latest compiler
package is always "gcc".
Yes, this sounds like a workable solution. Maybe ardour0 is indeed
overkill and everybody will migrate instantly to ardour(2) which is a
lot nicer in many ways. But it depends on how critical is the work you
are doing, of course.
Let me know when you want to roll out the new packages and we can
coordinate the upgrade path on both sides... I presume you will also
build for fc6, right?