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 ...