Is compiling for source the only way to still get Ardour 3 on Fedora 19?

[Sean Beeson]

Is compiling for source the only way to still get Ardour 3 on Fedora 19?

If so, does anyone have any good how to on dealing with the dependencies?

Thanks,

Sean

[Christopher Antila]

On 09/11/2013 12:42 PM, Sean Beeson wrote:
>  Is compiling for source the only way to still get Ardour 3 on Fedora
> 19?
>  
>  If so, does anyone have any good how to on dealing with the dependencies?  
Hi Sean:

With little effort, I found these instructions for Ardour 3.1:
https://blogs.fsfe.org/samtuke/?p=548

Please let us know whether they still work.

However, I feel we should start a discussion on what to do about Ardour,
now that they have asked distributions not to package their software.
This is actually a serious ethical dilemma.

Possible Options Include:

1.) Package Ardour 3 against the developers' wishes, making no
additional changes.

2.) Package Ardour 3 against the developers' wishes, making some change
that encourages donating money to the project.

3.) Continue to package Ardour 2, accepting responsibility for
maintaining software that's abandoned by the upstream developers.

4.) Drop Ardour from the distribution, since we do not wish to maintain
the Ardour 2.8.x series or package the Ardour 3.x series against the
developers' wishes.

5.) ?

I favour the first or second options, since the free software audio
community is so small that we can't afford the added difficulty of using
such an important piece of software. On the other hand, the free
software audio community is so small that we can't afford creating a
rift with the Ardour developers. If we choose one of these options, we
should be sure to involve the developers in our decision-making process.

If the SIG wishes, I would be happy to research the state of Ardour in
other distributions.


Christopher

[Ian Malone]

On 11 September 2013 21:29, Christopher R. Antila
<crantila(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; wrote:
>  On 09/11/2013 12:42 PM, Sean Beeson wrote:
> > Is compiling for source the only way to still get Ardour 3 on Fedora 19?
> >
> > If so, does anyone have any good how to on dealing with the dependencies?
>
>  Hi Sean:
>
>  With little effort, I found these instructions for Ardour 3.1:
>  https://blogs.fsfe.org/samtuke/?p=548
>
>  Please let us know whether they still work.
>
>  However, I feel we should start a discussion on what to do about Ardour,
>  now that they have asked distributions not to package their software.
>  This is actually a serious ethical dilemma.
>  
Have they actually done this? I can't see any mention on the site and
the only thing in the source appears to be "PACKAGER_README" which has
a note about naming the package if built with VST support and the
templates directory. If anything that note suggests they're still okay
with packaging.

If they had then they'd be saying two different things: it's licensed
GPL which is Ardour saying it's okay to use it in accordance with the
GPL (there's no mention of the GPL on the Ardour site, the license is
well hidden now). At the same time they are trying hard to prevent
access to the source code and steer people to paying them. I can
understand why, but what if all the libraries it depended on did the
same thing (most of which seem to be LGPL)?

>  I favour the first or second options, since the free software audio
>  community is so small that we can't afford the added difficulty of using
>  such an important piece of software. On the other hand, the free
>  software audio community is so small that we can't afford creating a
>  rift with the Ardour developers. If we choose one of these options, we
>  should be sure to involve the developers in our decision-making process.
>  
Involve might be the wrong word, but yes, need clarification on this
issue. Another Wodim wouldn't be great. It's a pity if it is the case,
the package model is so widespread on the main distros that the likely
effect of dropping it is that we get lots more requests about why it
isn't included and Ardour gets fewer users on Linux as people give up
or find alternatives.

>  If the SIG wishes, I would be happy to research the state of Ardour
> in
>  other distributions. 
I have a guess what the Ubuntu approach to this is...

-- 
imalone
http://ibmalone.blogspot.co.uk

[Brendan Jones]

On 09/12/2013 12:09 PM, Ian Malone wrote:
> > On 09/11/2013 12:42 PM, Sean Beeson wrote:
> >> >>Is compiling for source the only way to still get Ardour 3 on Fedora 19?
> >> >>
> >> >>If so, does anyone have any good how to on dealing with the
> dependencies?
> > >
> > >Hi Sean:
> > >
> > >With little effort, I found these instructions for Ardour 3.1:
> > >https://blogs.fsfe.org/samtuke/?p=548
> > >
> > >Please let us know whether they still work.
> > >
> > >However, I feel we should start a discussion on what to do about Ardour,
> > >now that they have asked distributions not to package their software.
> > >This is actually a serious ethical dilemma.
> > >
>  Have they actually done this? I can't see any mention on the site and
>  the only thing in the source appears to be "PACKAGER_README" which has
>  a note about naming the package if built with VST support and the
>  templates directory. If anything that note suggests they're still okay
>  with packaging. 
Paul Davis regularly states that he won't respond to bug reports filed 
against Ardour when its been installed via a distribution or 3rd party 
repo ([1] for example).

There is no longer any direct link to the source - you must login, go 
past the option to donate etc, however, this is the case for Ardour 2 as 
well.

I'd like the Ardour maintainers to weigh in - I think we should package 
it anyway. It is open source after all. However, it will require a new 
review request ( we should package both 2 and 3 in parallel, but only 3 
on the spin, assuming its ready in time).

I remember Fernando saying he has a .spec file available on request. 
Volunteers anyone?

regards,

Brendan.
[1] 
http://lists.ardour.org/pipermail/ardour-users-ardour.org/2013-August/012...

[Orcan Ogetbil]

On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 8:23 AM, Brendan Jones wrote:
>  I'd like the Ardour maintainers to weigh in - I think we should
> package it
>  anyway. It is open source after all. However, it will require a new review
>  request ( we should package both 2 and 3 in parallel, but only 3 on the
>  spin, assuming its ready in time).
>  
Yeah we (ardour2 maintainers) have been discussing how to deal with
the parallel installation. What would be the new package name(s),
obsoletes, provides etc.

There is a fresh review request in the bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1007099
It's not quite ready for review. Hopefully soon.

Cheers,
Orcan

ardour3 needs a reviewer, was: Is compiling for source the only way to still get Ardour 3 on Fedora 19?

[Nils Philippsen]

Hi,

On Thu, 2013-09-12 at 08:40 -0400, Orcan Ogetbil wrote:
>  There is a fresh review request in the bugzilla
>  https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1007099
>  It's not quite ready for review. Hopefully soon. 
it's ready for review meanwhile, so if anybody wants to give it a
shot...

Nils
-- 
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

[Sean Beeson]

Thanks, Christopher.

Say, does anyone know the extra steps to compiles with VST support that the
Ardour instructions say are coming soon?

Thanks,

Sean


On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 5:29 AM, Christopher R. Antila <
crantila(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; wrote:

>  On 09/11/2013 12:42 PM, Sean Beeson wrote:
>  > Is compiling for source the only way to still get Ardour 3 on Fedora 19?
>  >
>  > If so, does anyone have any good how to on dealing with the dependencies?
>
>  Hi Sean:
>
>  With little effort, I found these instructions for Ardour 3.1:
>  https://blogs.fsfe.org/samtuke/?p=548
>
>  Please let us know whether they still work.
>
>  However, I feel we should start a discussion on what to do about Ardour,
>  now that they have asked distributions not to package their software.
>  This is actually a serious ethical dilemma.
>
>  Possible Options Include:
>
>  1.) Package Ardour 3 against the developers' wishes, making no
>  additional changes.
>
>  2.) Package Ardour 3 against the developers' wishes, making some change
>  that encourages donating money to the project.
>
>  3.) Continue to package Ardour 2, accepting responsibility for
>  maintaining software that's abandoned by the upstream developers.
>
>  4.) Drop Ardour from the distribution, since we do not wish to maintain
>  the Ardour 2.8.x series or package the Ardour 3.x series against the
>  developers' wishes.
>
>  5.) ?
>
>  I favour the first or second options, since the free software audio
>  community is so small that we can't afford the added difficulty of using
>  such an important piece of software. On the other hand, the free
>  software audio community is so small that we can't afford creating a
>  rift with the Ardour developers. If we choose one of these options, we
>  should be sure to involve the developers in our decision-making process.
>
>  If the SIG wishes, I would be happy to research the state of Ardour in
>  other distributions.
>
>
>  Christopher
>  _______________________________________________
>  music mailing list
>  music(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>  https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/music

[Sean Beeson]

Christopher,

On following the instructions I get...

[root@localhost 3.4]# ./waf configure
Setting top to                           : /opt/ardour/3.4
Setting out to                           : /opt/ardour/3.4/build
Checking for 'gcc' (c compiler)          : /usr/bin/gcc
Checking for 'g++' (c++ compiler)        : /usr/bin/g++

Global Configuration
 * Install prefix                                    : /usr/local
 * Debuggable build                                  : True
 * Build documentation                               : False

Ardour Configuration
 * Will build against private GTK dependency stack   : no
 * Will rely on libintl built into libc              : yes
 * Will build against private Ardour dependency stack : no
Checking for boost library >= 1.39                   : too old
Please install boost version 1.39 or higher.
The configuration failed
(complete log in /opt/ardour/3.4/build/config.log)

I have boost 1.53 installed, so I am not sure at this point what to try. I
am building this on a F19 x86_64.

Sean


On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 5:29 AM, Christopher R. Antila <
crantila(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; wrote:

>  On 09/11/2013 12:42 PM, Sean Beeson wrote:
>  > Is compiling for source the only way to still get Ardour 3 on Fedora 19?
>  >
>  > If so, does anyone have any good how to on dealing with the dependencies?
>
>  Hi Sean:
>
>  With little effort, I found these instructions for Ardour 3.1:
>  https://blogs.fsfe.org/samtuke/?p=548
>
>  Please let us know whether they still work.
>
>  However, I feel we should start a discussion on what to do about Ardour,
>  now that they have asked distributions not to package their software.
>  This is actually a serious ethical dilemma.
>
>  Possible Options Include:
>
>  1.) Package Ardour 3 against the developers' wishes, making no
>  additional changes.
>
>  2.) Package Ardour 3 against the developers' wishes, making some change
>  that encourages donating money to the project.
>
>  3.) Continue to package Ardour 2, accepting responsibility for
>  maintaining software that's abandoned by the upstream developers.
>
>  4.) Drop Ardour from the distribution, since we do not wish to maintain
>  the Ardour 2.8.x series or package the Ardour 3.x series against the
>  developers' wishes.
>
>  5.) ?
>
>  I favour the first or second options, since the free software audio
>  community is so small that we can't afford the added difficulty of using
>  such an important piece of software. On the other hand, the free
>  software audio community is so small that we can't afford creating a
>  rift with the Ardour developers. If we choose one of these options, we
>  should be sure to involve the developers in our decision-making process.
>
>  If the SIG wishes, I would be happy to research the state of Ardour in
>  other distributions.
>
>
>  Christopher
>  _______________________________________________
>  music mailing list
>  music(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>  https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/music

[Sean Beeson]

OK, sorry. I neglected to install the boost-devel package. I have done that
now and the /waf configure worked, so the actual compilation should as also
work. It's about 1/4 of the way done. I will report back...

Sean


On Sat, Oct 12, 2013 at 12:19 AM, Sean Beeson <seanbeeson(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:

>  Christopher,
>
>  On following the instructions I get...
>
>  [root@localhost 3.4]# ./waf configure
>  Setting top to                           : /opt/ardour/3.4
>  Setting out to                           : /opt/ardour/3.4/build
>  Checking for 'gcc' (c compiler)          : /usr/bin/gcc
>  Checking for 'g++' (c++ compiler)        : /usr/bin/g++
>
>  Global Configuration
>   * Install prefix                                    : /usr/local
>   * Debuggable build                                  : True
>   * Build documentation                               : False
>
>  Ardour Configuration
>   * Will build against private GTK dependency stack   : no
>   * Will rely on libintl built into libc              : yes
>   * Will build against private Ardour dependency stack : no
>  Checking for boost library >= 1.39                   : too old
>  Please install boost version 1.39 or higher.
>  The configuration failed
>  (complete log in /opt/ardour/3.4/build/config.log)
>
>  I have boost 1.53 installed, so I am not sure at this point what to try. I
>  am building this on a F19 x86_64.
>
>  Sean
>
>
>  On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 5:29 AM, Christopher R. Antila <
>  crantila(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; wrote:
>
> > On 09/11/2013 12:42 PM, Sean Beeson wrote:
> > > Is compiling for source the only way to still get Ardour 3 on Fedora 19?
> > >
> > > If so, does anyone have any good how to on dealing with the
> > dependencies?
> >
> > Hi Sean:
> >
> > With little effort, I found these instructions for Ardour 3.1:
> > https://blogs.fsfe.org/samtuke/?p=548
> >
> > Please let us know whether they still work.
> >
> > However, I feel we should start a discussion on what to do about Ardour,
> > now that they have asked distributions not to package their software.
> > This is actually a serious ethical dilemma.
> >
> > Possible Options Include:
> >
> > 1.) Package Ardour 3 against the developers' wishes, making no
> > additional changes.
> >
> > 2.) Package Ardour 3 against the developers' wishes, making some change
> > that encourages donating money to the project.
> >
> > 3.) Continue to package Ardour 2, accepting responsibility for
> > maintaining software that's abandoned by the upstream developers.
> >
> > 4.) Drop Ardour from the distribution, since we do not wish to maintain
> > the Ardour 2.8.x series or package the Ardour 3.x series against the
> > developers' wishes.
> >
> > 5.) ?
> >
> > I favour the first or second options, since the free software audio
> > community is so small that we can't afford the added difficulty of using
> > such an important piece of software. On the other hand, the free
> > software audio community is so small that we can't afford creating a
> > rift with the Ardour developers. If we choose one of these options, we
> > should be sure to involve the developers in our decision-making process.
> >
> > If the SIG wishes, I would be happy to research the state of Ardour in
> > other distributions.
> >
> >
> > Christopher
> > _______________________________________________
> > music mailing list
> > music(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
> > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/music
>
>
>

[Sean Beeson]

OK, It compiled and I have it started up. So, those instructions work other
than needing to add boost-devel 1.39 or above. How well it works will take
some time to test, though. I didn't compile with
Ardour's modified library versions. I am curious how that will work out. It
seems the fonts are different than with previous versions because of this
already.  Is it possible to install them on Fedora from the download links
Ardour devs provides?

Sean


On Sat, Oct 12, 2013 at 12:38 AM, Sean Beeson <seanbeeson(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:

>  OK, sorry. I neglected to install the boost-devel package. I have
> done
>  that now and the /waf configure worked, so the actual compilation should as
>  also work. It's about 1/4 of the way done. I will report back...
>
>  Sean
>
>
>  On Sat, Oct 12, 2013 at 12:19 AM, Sean Beeson <seanbeeson(a)gmail.com&gt;wrote:
>
> > Christopher,
> >
> > On following the instructions I get...
> >
> > [root@localhost 3.4]# ./waf configure
> > Setting top to                           : /opt/ardour/3.4
> > Setting out to                           : /opt/ardour/3.4/build
> > Checking for 'gcc' (c compiler)          : /usr/bin/gcc
> > Checking for 'g++' (c++ compiler)        : /usr/bin/g++
> >
> > Global Configuration
> >  * Install prefix                                    : /usr/local
> >  * Debuggable build                                  : True
> >  * Build documentation                               : False
> >
> > Ardour Configuration
> >  * Will build against private GTK dependency stack   : no
> >  * Will rely on libintl built into libc              : yes
> >  * Will build against private Ardour dependency stack : no
> > Checking for boost library >= 1.39                   : too old
> > Please install boost version 1.39 or higher.
> > The configuration failed
> > (complete log in /opt/ardour/3.4/build/config.log)
> >
> > I have boost 1.53 installed, so I am not sure at this point what to try.
> > I am building this on a F19 x86_64.
> >
> > Sean
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 5:29 AM, Christopher R. Antila <
> > crantila(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; wrote:
> >
> >> On 09/11/2013 12:42 PM, Sean Beeson wrote:
> >> > Is compiling for source the only way to still get Ardour 3 on Fedora
> >> 19?
> >> >
> >> > If so, does anyone have any good how to on dealing with the
> >> dependencies?
> >>
> >> Hi Sean:
> >>
> >> With little effort, I found these instructions for Ardour 3.1:
> >> https://blogs.fsfe.org/samtuke/?p=548
> >>
> >> Please let us know whether they still work.
> >>
> >> However, I feel we should start a discussion on what to do about Ardour,
> >> now that they have asked distributions not to package their software.
> >> This is actually a serious ethical dilemma.
> >>
> >> Possible Options Include:
> >>
> >> 1.) Package Ardour 3 against the developers' wishes, making no
> >> additional changes.
> >>
> >> 2.) Package Ardour 3 against the developers' wishes, making some change
> >> that encourages donating money to the project.
> >>
> >> 3.) Continue to package Ardour 2, accepting responsibility for
> >> maintaining software that's abandoned by the upstream developers.
> >>
> >> 4.) Drop Ardour from the distribution, since we do not wish to maintain
> >> the Ardour 2.8.x series or package the Ardour 3.x series against the
> >> developers' wishes.
> >>
> >> 5.) ?
> >>
> >> I favour the first or second options, since the free software audio
> >> community is so small that we can't afford the added difficulty of using
> >> such an important piece of software. On the other hand, the free
> >> software audio community is so small that we can't afford creating a
> >> rift with the Ardour developers. If we choose one of these options, we
> >> should be sure to involve the developers in our decision-making process.
> >>
> >> If the SIG wishes, I would be happy to research the state of Ardour in
> >> other distributions.
> >>
> >>
> >> Christopher
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> music mailing list
> >> music(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
> >> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/music
> >
> >
> >
>

[Sean Beeson]

Worked with 3.4 for a bit. The Midi tracks are working well. Set up one to
use Calf MonoSynth and one to use an external hardware synth. I had to
j2amidi_bridge
to send Midi notes over to the Alsa side that the hardware synths come in
on and also to connect a usb/midi keyboard to the jack port side. Is there
a better way to do this?

I haven't recorded anything yet, but it all seems to work pretty well so
far and running very smoothly.

After I get used to working with the new MIDI editing parts, It looks very
promising.

Sean


On Sat, Oct 12, 2013 at 1:32 AM, Sean Beeson <seanbeeson(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:

>  OK, It compiled and I have it started up. So, those instructions
> work
>  other than needing to add boost-devel 1.39 or above. How well it works will
>  take some time to test, though. I didn't compile with
>  Ardour's modified library versions. I am curious how that will work out. It
>  seems the fonts are different than with previous versions because of this
>  already.  Is it possible to install them on Fedora from the download links
>  Ardour devs provides?
>
>  Sean
>
>
>  On Sat, Oct 12, 2013 at 12:38 AM, Sean Beeson <seanbeeson(a)gmail.com&gt;wrote:
>
> > OK, sorry. I neglected to install the boost-devel package. I have done
> > that now and the /waf configure worked, so the actual compilation should as
> > also work. It's about 1/4 of the way done. I will report back...
> >
> > Sean
> >
> >
> > On Sat, Oct 12, 2013 at 12:19 AM, Sean Beeson <seanbeeson(a)gmail.com&gt;wrote:
> >
> >> Christopher,
> >>
> >> On following the instructions I get...
> >>
> >> [root@localhost 3.4]# ./waf configure
> >> Setting top to                           : /opt/ardour/3.4
> >> Setting out to                           : /opt/ardour/3.4/build
> >> Checking for 'gcc' (c compiler)          : /usr/bin/gcc
> >> Checking for 'g++' (c++ compiler)        : /usr/bin/g++
> >>
> >> Global Configuration
> >>  * Install prefix                                    : /usr/local
> >>  * Debuggable build                                  : True
> >>  * Build documentation                               : False
> >>
> >> Ardour Configuration
> >>  * Will build against private GTK dependency stack   : no
> >>  * Will rely on libintl built into libc              : yes
> >>  * Will build against private Ardour dependency stack : no
> >> Checking for boost library >= 1.39                   : too old
> >> Please install boost version 1.39 or higher.
> >> The configuration failed
> >> (complete log in /opt/ardour/3.4/build/config.log)
> >>
> >> I have boost 1.53 installed, so I am not sure at this point what to try.
> >> I am building this on a F19 x86_64.
> >>
> >> Sean
> >>
> >>
> >> On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 5:29 AM, Christopher R. Antila <
> >> crantila(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; wrote:
> >>
> >>> On 09/11/2013 12:42 PM, Sean Beeson wrote:
> >>> > Is compiling for source the only way to still get Ardour 3 on Fedora
> >>> 19?
> >>> >
> >>> > If so, does anyone have any good how to on dealing with the
> >>> dependencies?
> >>>
> >>> Hi Sean:
> >>>
> >>> With little effort, I found these instructions for Ardour 3.1:
> >>> https://blogs.fsfe.org/samtuke/?p=548
> >>>
> >>> Please let us know whether they still work.
> >>>
> >>> However, I feel we should start a discussion on what to do about Ardour,
> >>> now that they have asked distributions not to package their software.
> >>> This is actually a serious ethical dilemma.
> >>>
> >>> Possible Options Include:
> >>>
> >>> 1.) Package Ardour 3 against the developers' wishes, making no
> >>> additional changes.
> >>>
> >>> 2.) Package Ardour 3 against the developers' wishes, making some change
> >>> that encourages donating money to the project.
> >>>
> >>> 3.) Continue to package Ardour 2, accepting responsibility for
> >>> maintaining software that's abandoned by the upstream developers.
> >>>
> >>> 4.) Drop Ardour from the distribution, since we do not wish to maintain
> >>> the Ardour 2.8.x series or package the Ardour 3.x series against the
> >>> developers' wishes.
> >>>
> >>> 5.) ?
> >>>
> >>> I favour the first or second options, since the free software audio
> >>> community is so small that we can't afford the added difficulty of using
> >>> such an important piece of software. On the other hand, the free
> >>> software audio community is so small that we can't afford creating a
> >>> rift with the Ardour developers. If we choose one of these options, we
> >>> should be sure to involve the developers in our decision-making process.
> >>>
> >>> If the SIG wishes, I would be happy to research the state of Ardour in
> >>> other distributions.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Christopher
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> music mailing list
> >>> music(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
> >>> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/music
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
>

[Brendan Jones]

On 10/11/2013 08:05 PM, Sean Beeson wrote:
>  Worked with 3.4 for a bit. The Midi tracks are working well. Set up
> one
>  to use Calf MonoSynth and one to use an external hardware synth. I had
>  to j2amidi_bridge to send Midi notes over to the Alsa side that the
>  hardware synths come in on and also to connect a usb/midi keyboard to
>  the jack port side. Is there a better way to do this? 
I run a2jmidid -e in my "Execute script after staturp" script in qjackctl.

>  I haven't recorded anything yet, but it all seems to work pretty well so
>  far and running very smoothly.
>
>  After I get used to working with the new MIDI editing parts, It looks
>  very promising.
>
>  Sean
>  
Nice! Nils is working through packaging this [1] at the moment albeit 
without VST support (it produces a separate ardour binary and probably 
should constitute a separate package).

To alleviate this I've packaged fst and festige [2][3]. fst is what 
Ardour uses for VST plugins and has the advantage over dssi-vst in that 
it can respond to tempo control. festige is a python UI for both fst and 
dssi-vst. Still awaiting a review if anyone would like to help me out 
here. As with dissi-vst, neither will go on the spin (can't see a way to 
install arch specific packages in the kickstart).

If you use something like a combination of non-session-manager, a2jmidid 
and aj-snapshot (new) you can probably get by without requiring Ardour 
with VST built in.

Another alternative is to use ladish/gladish for your session management 
(only just recently landed in updates-testing, will pull in jackdbus so 
you will have to modify your qjackctl accordingly). Festige also 
supports ladish, although I have not tried it.

Thansk for the updates,

Brendan

[1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1007099
[2] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1015958
[3] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1016444

[Ian Malone]

On 13 October 2013 15:03, Brendan Jones <brendan.jones.it(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:
>  On 10/11/2013 08:05 PM, Sean Beeson wrote:
> >
> > Worked with 3.4 for a bit. The Midi tracks are working well. Set up one
> > to use Calf MonoSynth and one to use an external hardware synth. I had
> > to j2amidi_bridge to send Midi notes over to the Alsa side that the
> > hardware synths come in on and also to connect a usb/midi keyboard to
> > the jack port side. Is there a better way to do this?
>
>
>  I run a2jmidid -e in my "Execute script after staturp" script in qjackctl.
>  
There's also the 'MIDI settings' option in QJackCtl settings, I have
this set to seq to provide a midi bridge. (Apparently there is not
much difference between seq and raw.)

-- 
imalone

[Fernando Lopez-Lezcano]

On 09/12/2013 05:23 AM, Brendan Jones wrote:
>  On 09/12/2013 12:09 PM, Ian Malone wrote:
> >> On 09/11/2013 12:42 PM, Sean Beeson wrote:
> >>> >>Is compiling for source the only way to still get Ardour 3 on Fedora
> 19?
> >>> >>
> >>> >>If so, does anyone have any good how to on dealing with the
> dependencies?
> >> >
> >> >Hi Sean:
> >> >
> >> >With little effort, I found these instructions for Ardour 3.1:
> >> >https://blogs.fsfe.org/samtuke/?p=548
> >> >
> >> >Please let us know whether they still work.
> >> >
> >> >However, I feel we should start a discussion on what to do about Ardour,
> >> >now that they have asked distributions not to package their software.
> >> >This is actually a serious ethical dilemma.
> >> >
> > Have they actually done this? I can't see any mention on the site and
> > the only thing in the source appears to be "PACKAGER_README" which has
> > a note about naming the package if built with VST support and the
> > templates directory. If anything that note suggests they're still okay
> > with packaging.
>
>  Paul Davis regularly states that he won't respond to bug reports filed
>  against Ardour when its been installed via a distribution or 3rd party
>  repo ([1] for example). 
He's had to deal with many problems in the past from bad packaging or 
problems with the native libraries in the distributions (I don't think 
he has had any with Fedora - or so I hope).

>  There is no longer any direct link to the source - you must login,
> go
>  past the option to donate etc, however, this is the case for Ardour 2 as
>  well. 
(sorry for the delay in answering this...)

I do get it regularly from git... nothing to do other than clone it, no 
barriers to do that.

I maintain an internal build for CCRMA and I have a spec file I have 
been using. Let me know if you want it... You also need to package 
harvid for the video timeline stuff to work (I also have a spec file for 
it).

-- Fernando



>  I'd like the Ardour maintainers to weigh in - I think we should
> package
>  it anyway. It is open source after all. However, it will require a new
>  review request ( we should package both 2 and 3 in parallel, but only 3
>  on the spin, assuming its ready in time).
>
>  I remember Fernando saying he has a .spec file available on request.
>  Volunteers anyone?
>
>  regards,
>
>  Brendan.
>  [1]
>  http://lists.ardour.org/pipermail/ardour-users-ardour.org/2013-August/012...