Hi,
Now that Ardour 2.0 has been released, will it be in the repository for FC7?
BTW: is there a list of available packages in FC7 somewhere?
Thanks
Keith Sharp wrote:
It would be nice to get Rosegarden upgraded to version 1.5.1 as well.
The best way to get the maintainer's attention is to file a bug report at http://bugzilla.redhat.com.
AG
Per Thomas Jahr wrote:
Hi,
Now that Ardour 2.0 has been released, will it be in the repository for FC7?
Yes, I just started working on this for F7.
BTW: is there a list of available packages in FC7 somewhere?
Just poke around here...
http://redhat.download.fedoraproject.org/pub/fedora/linux/
AG
On Wed, 2007-05-02 at 07:17 -0700, Anthony Green wrote:
Per Thomas Jahr wrote:
Hi,
Now that Ardour 2.0 has been released, will it be in the repository for FC7?
Yes, I just started working on this for F7.
Excellent!
BTW: is there a list of available packages in FC7 somewhere?
Just poke around here...
Thanks! Per Thomas
Per Thomas Jahr wrote:
Hi,
Now that Ardour 2.0 has been released, will it be in the repository for FC7?
This new version of ardour installs as /usr/bin/ardour2 (/etc/ardour2, etc), so you can install it in parallel with the old ardour. However, it's also fully backwards compatible with the older ardour, so there's no real reason to have both installed.
I was planning on calling the package ardour, not ardour2, and it will be the natural upgrade path for people with ardour already installed. The binaries and directories will still all be called ardour2, but that won't matter to people running it from the Applications menu.
I think, however, that this is different from nando's ardour2 prerelease packages.
Fernando, what do you think we should do?
AG
On Wed, 2007-05-02 at 08:07 -0700, Anthony Green wrote:
Per Thomas Jahr wrote:
Hi,
Now that Ardour 2.0 has been released, will it be in the repository for FC7?
This new version of ardour installs as /usr/bin/ardour2 (/etc/ardour2, etc), so you can install it in parallel with the old ardour. However, it's also fully backwards compatible with the older ardour, so there's no real reason to have both installed.
I was planning on calling the package ardour, not ardour2, and it will be the natural upgrade path for people with ardour already installed. The binaries and directories will still all be called ardour2, but that won't matter to people running it from the Applications menu.
I think, however, that this is different from nando's ardour2 prerelease packages.
Fernando, what do you think we should do?
Hmmm, no right answer... thanks for asking...
I've been tracking Ardour2 in fc5/fc6 for a while and the ardour2 package on Planet CCRMA was out a few hours after the announcement.
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... :-)
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, right?
-- Fernando
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, right?
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".
AG
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, right?
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?
-- Fernando
-
Anthony Green -
Fernando Lopez-Lezcano -
Keith Sharp -
Per Thomas Jahr