[Fedora-music-list] Naming of Ardour packages
Brian Monroe
briancmonroe at gmail.com
Fri May 8 16:09:53 UTC 2015
+1 to your plan. I spent a hours trying to figure out why things were wrong
in F19 when I did yum install ardour. I think people expect that to get
them the most recent package.
On Fri, May 8, 2015, 8:54 AM Nils Philippsen <nils at redhat.com> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> with the advent of Ardour version 4, the question came up why the oldest
> available version 2 is packaged as "ardour" rather than the latest one:
>
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1216055#c15
>
> The reason for keeping version 2 around is that while later versions can
> migrate old sessions, some information is lost in the process. Ardour
> version 3 became ardour3 so people could install both versions 2 and 3
> side-by-side, and that the new package got reviewed instead of the old
> one (which would have been the case had I submitted an ardour2 package
> for review). In that vein I packaged version 4 as ardour4, also because
> ardour3-4.0.0 would have looked plain silly (despite that the session
> files are compatible between versions 3 and 4) and introducing a new
> major version replacing the old one with a substantially changed
> look-and-feel in an existing Fedora release is a big no-no.
>
> The question posed in the ardour4 review ticket is valid though, so I'd
> like to come up with a scheme for the future that achieves these
> objectives:
>
> - Installing "ardour" will always get you the latest available version
> (on a Fedora release -- e.g. F-20 won't get version 4 because the JACK
> package is too old).
> - Every major version gets its own package so side-by-side installs are
> possible, especially for occasions where the session format changes
> (like v2 -> v3).
> - Versions which are session-compatible with newer versions get retired
> from Fedora releases that aren't stable yet (e.g. v3 because the session
> format is the same as with v4).
>
> I'd do it like this (in Fedora >= 22):
>
> - 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?
>
> Nils
> --
> Nils Philippsen "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase
> Red Hat a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty
> nils at redhat.com nor Safety." -- Benjamin Franklin, 1759
> PGP fingerprint: C4A8 9474 5C4C ADE3 2B8F 656D 47D8 9B65 6951 3011
>
> _______________________________________________
> music mailing list
> music at lists.fedoraproject.org
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/music
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/music/attachments/20150508/b618b794/attachment.html>
More information about the music
mailing list