10:52 a.m.
I was looking at upgrading ardour to 2.2 for f8 and devel when I came
across the following note:
Important note for upgrading from 2.1 or earlier
Please note that for several of the new features and fixes listed below,
it is necessary to remove or update the following files if you have them
in your ~/.ardour2 directory:
* ardour2_ui.rc
* ardour.bindings
* ardour2_ui.conf
We have still not come up with an easy way to "upgrade" per-user files
when we change key bindings, the menu structures and add/remove various
UI color codes.
So... how should we handle this in our package? It seems nasty to do
something like "rm /home/*/.ardour2/ardour2_ui.rc" at install time, but
that might still be the best way to deal with this.
Or....?
AG
11:54 a.m.
Anthony Green wrote:
I was looking at upgrading ardour to 2.2 for f8 and devel when I came
across the following note:
Important note for upgrading from 2.1 or earlier
Please note that for several of the new features and fixes listed below,
it is necessary to remove or update the following files if you have them
in your ~/.ardour2 directory:
* ardour2_ui.rc
* ardour.bindings
* ardour2_ui.conf
We have still not come up with an easy way to "upgrade" per-user files
when we change key bindings, the menu structures and add/remove various
UI color codes.
So... how should we handle this in our package? It seems nasty to do
something like "rm /home/*/.ardour2/ardour2_ui.rc" at install time, but
that might still be the best way to deal with this.
Or....?
I think it would be best to put the real ardour binary under /usr/libexec and
put a bash script called ardour under /usr/bin, this script could then check
for an ~/.ardour2/ardourver2.2 file, and if that not exits remove the 3 files
mentioned above (if they exist, or use rm -f), then it would touch
~/.ardour2/ardourver2.2 (after an mkdir -p ~/.ardour2) and finally end with:
exec /usr/libexec/ardour "$@"
Regards,
Hans
1:32 a.m.
Hans de Goede wrote:
I think it would be best to put the real ardour binary under
/usr/libexec and put a bash script called ardour under /usr/bin, this
script could then check for an ~/.ardour2/ardourver2.2 file, and if
that not exits remove the 3 files mentioned above (if they exist, or
use rm -f), then it would touch ~/.ardour2/ardourver2.2 (after an
mkdir -p ~/.ardour2) and finally end with:
exec /usr/libexec/ardour "$@"
Ok, I've kicked off a devel build of ardour 2.2 with the changes you
described. It should show up in rawhide soon (assuming the build
completes). Please have a look if you can. If it looks good, then I'll
probably push it out to F8 as well.
Thanks,
AG
12:28 p.m.
On Mon, 2008-01-21 at 23:32 -0800, Anthony Green wrote:
Hans de Goede wrote:
> I think it would be best to put the real ardour binary under
> /usr/libexec and put a bash script called ardour under /usr/bin, this
> script could then check for an ~/.ardour2/ardourver2.2 file, and if
> that not exits remove the 3 files mentioned above (if they exist, or
> use rm -f), then it would touch ~/.ardour2/ardourver2.2 (after an
> mkdir -p ~/.ardour2) and finally end with:
> exec /usr/libexec/ardour "$@"
Wouldn't it be better to mv the three files to .back files or something
like that? Those files might have customizations that the user did and
erasing them outright does not seem like the best option to me.
Ok, I've kicked off a devel build of ardour 2.2 with the changes
you
described. It should show up in rawhide soon (assuming the build
completes). Please have a look if you can. If it looks good, then I'll
probably push it out to F8 as well.
And to f7 as well?
-- Fernando
1:41 p.m.
On Mon, 2008-01-21 at 23:32 -0800, Anthony Green wrote:
Ok, I've kicked off a devel build of ardour 2.2 with the changes
you
described. It should show up in rawhide soon (assuming the build
completes). Please have a look if you can. If it looks good, then I'll
probably push it out to F8 as well.
Erm, your script doesn't do a
"mkdir -p ~/.ardour2"
Before the touch, so for a first time ardour user (without an ~/.ardour2 dir)
the touch will fail, nothing fatal, but this will cause an anoying / confusing
error message if the user starts ardour from a shell the first time.
The -p is so that mkdit doesn't complain if the dir already exits.
Regards,
Hans
1:42 p.m.
Fernando Lopez-Lezcano wrote:
On Mon, 2008-01-21 at 23:32 -0800, Anthony Green wrote:
> Hans de Goede wrote:
>> I think it would be best to put the real ardour binary under
>> /usr/libexec and put a bash script called ardour under /usr/bin, this
>> script could then check for an ~/.ardour2/ardourver2.2 file, and if
>> that not exits remove the 3 files mentioned above (if they exist, or
>> use rm -f), then it would touch ~/.ardour2/ardourver2.2 (after an
>> mkdir -p ~/.ardour2) and finally end with:
>> exec /usr/libexec/ardour "$@"
Wouldn't it be better to mv the three files to .back files or something
like that? Those files might have customizations that the user did and
erasing them outright does not seem like the best option to me.
That sounds reasonable, yes.
Regards,
Hans
4:09 p.m.
Fernando Lopez-Lezcano wrote:
On Mon, 2008-01-21 at 23:32 -0800, Anthony Green wrote:
> Hans de Goede wrote:
>
>> I think it would be best to put the real ardour binary under
>> /usr/libexec and put a bash script called ardour under /usr/bin, this
>> script could then check for an ~/.ardour2/ardourver2.2 file, and if
>> that not exits remove the 3 files mentioned above (if they exist, or
>> use rm -f), then it would touch ~/.ardour2/ardourver2.2 (after an
>> mkdir -p ~/.ardour2) and finally end with:
>> exec /usr/libexec/ardour "$@"
>>
Wouldn't it be better to mv the three files to .back files or something
like that? Those files might have customizations that the user did and
erasing them outright does not seem like the best option to me.
Ok, done (as well as the mkdir -p that Hans pointed out). It's building
in rawhide right now.
> Ok, I've kicked off a devel build of ardour 2.2 with the
changes you
> described. It should show up in rawhide soon (assuming the build
> completes). Please have a look if you can. If it looks good, then I'll
> probably push it out to F8 as well.
>
And to f7 as well?
-- Fernando
Ok.
AG
5932
days inactive
5937
days old
6 comments
3 participants
participants (3)
-
Anthony Green -
Fernando Lopez-Lezcano -
Hans de Goede