10:54 a.m.
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(a)redhat.com nor Safety." -- Benjamin Franklin, 1759
PGP fingerprint: C4A8 9474 5C4C ADE3 2B8F 656D 47D8 9B65 6951 3011
11:09 a.m.
+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(a)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(a)redhat.com nor Safety." -- Benjamin Franklin, 1759
PGP fingerprint: C4A8 9474 5C4C ADE3 2B8F 656D 47D8 9B65 6951 3011
_______________________________________________
music mailing list
music(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/music
12:36 p.m.
That sounds like the most reasonable solution to me. Can we make this happen for Fedora 22
or is it too late for that?
Sent: Friday, May 08, 2015 at 11:09 AM
From: "Brian Monroe" <briancmonroe(a)gmail.com>
To: "Nils Philippsen" <nils(a)redhat.com>, music(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
Subject: Re: [Fedora-music-list] Naming of Ardour packages
+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(a)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[https://bugzilla....
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@redhat.com[nils(a)redhat.com] nor Safety." -- Benjamin Franklin, 1759
PGP fingerprint: C4A8 9474 5C4C ADE3 2B8F 656D 47D8 9B65 6951 3011
_______________________________________________
music mailing list
music@lists.fedoraproject.org[music(a)lists.fedoraproject.org]
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/music___________________...
music mailing list music(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/music[https://admin.fedo...
12:43 p.m.
Sent: Friday, May 08, 2015 at 11:09 AM
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?
I think retiring ardour3 at this point is too early - I for one am
still adjusting to the ardour4 interface.
Also, IIUC, you propose to simply add a Provides: ardour to the latest
ardourN package to ensure that a dnf install ardour always installs
the latest ardour package. The problem is that that will break for
anyone currently with the current ardour (i.e.. ardour 2) package
installed. After switching the package names as you suggest, when that
person runs a dnf update, they'll get ardour4 installed as an update
to their old ardour package (which contained ardour 2). They'd then
need to do a dnf install adrdour2 (and optionally dnf remove ardour).
Perhaps this isn't too much of an inconvenience, but I thought I
should flag it.
Thanks for working on packaging ardour, I for one am very grateful.
Jonathan
12:54 p.m.
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 ...
rosegarden4 :-)
--
MT
1:08 p.m.
Looking at the wiki guide the way suggested is to :
<http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Multiple_package...
The most current version: ardour
Previous version names: ardour2 (or ardour3.5)
This would differ from having ardour be a meta package.
On Fri, May 8, 2015 at 10:55 AM Martin Tarenskeen <m.tarenskeen(a)zonnet.nl>
wrote:
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 ...
rosegarden4 :-)
--
MT
_______________________________________________
music mailing list
music(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/music
3:48 p.m.
Hi Brian,
On Fri, 2015-05-08 at 18:08 +0000, Brian Monroe wrote:
Looking at the wiki guide the way suggested is to :
The most current version: ardour
Previous version names: ardour2 (or ardour3.5)
This would differ from having ardour be a meta package.
having the latest version packaged as "ardour" would making introducing
the next major version into stable Fedora releases a hassle. Say ardour
were version 4, then introducing version 5 would require creating
ardour4, obsoleting ardour <= ... so existing users aren't upgraded to
the new version (which may be incompatible). All existing users would
have to get an update just to follow the name change.
Thinking further about it, having a meta package that only pulls in the
latest ardour major version when it arrives is kind of overkill. The
most simple way is probably just having ardourN packages for each major
version. If, like with the version 3 and 4, the session file formats are
compatible between versions, we can retire the older version in upcoming
Fedora releases, i.e. in the current case, retire ardour3 from Fedora 22
on.
Nils
On Fri, May 8, 2015 at 10:55 AM Martin Tarenskeen
<m.tarenskeen(a)zonnet.nl> wrote:
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 ...
rosegarden4 :-)
--
MT
_______________________________________________
music mailing list
music(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/music
_______________________________________________
music mailing list
music(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/music
--
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
4 p.m.
Is it possible to have a dnf alias, so when users "dnf install ardour" it
will select ardour4 (or whatever the current package is) That could provide
some ease-of-install without needing to maintain a meta package.
On Fri, May 8, 2015 at 1:48 PM Nils Philippsen <nils(a)redhat.com> wrote:
Hi Brian,
On Fri, 2015-05-08 at 18:08 +0000, Brian Monroe wrote:
> Looking at the wiki guide the way suggested is to :
>
> The most current version: ardour
> Previous version names: ardour2 (or ardour3.5)
>
>
> This would differ from having ardour be a meta package.
having the latest version packaged as "ardour" would making introducing
the next major version into stable Fedora releases a hassle. Say ardour
were version 4, then introducing version 5 would require creating
ardour4, obsoleting ardour <= ... so existing users aren't upgraded to
the new version (which may be incompatible). All existing users would
have to get an update just to follow the name change.
Thinking further about it, having a meta package that only pulls in the
latest ardour major version when it arrives is kind of overkill. The
most simple way is probably just having ardourN packages for each major
version. If, like with the version 3 and 4, the session file formats are
compatible between versions, we can retire the older version in upcoming
Fedora releases, i.e. in the current case, retire ardour3 from Fedora 22
on.
Nils
> On Fri, May 8, 2015 at 10:55 AM Martin Tarenskeen
> <m.tarenskeen(a)zonnet.nl> wrote:
>
>
> 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 ...
> rosegarden4 :-)
>
> --
>
> MT
>
> _______________________________________________
> music mailing list
> music(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/music
> _______________________________________________
> music mailing list
> music(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/music
--
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
4:32 p.m.
Does it make any difference to this discussion that multiple
Ardour releases coexist just fine when installed via the
downloaded Ardour*.run files? Maybe Ardour RPM packages should
also be able to coexist?
Just my $0.02.
Thanks for working on this!
--
Kevin
6:09 p.m.
On Fri, 2015-05-08 at 14:32 -0700, Kevin Cosgrove wrote:
Does it make any difference to this discussion that multiple
Ardour releases coexist just fine when installed via the
downloaded Ardour*.run files? Maybe Ardour RPM packages should
also be able to coexist?
They do that already.
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
1:05 p.m.
Is it possible to make the new 'ardour' metapackage check if ardour <=
2.8.16-12 is installed and if so, remove it and install ardour2?
Sent: Friday, May 08, 2015 at 12:43 PM
From: "Jonathan Underwood" <jonathan.underwood(a)gmail.com>
To: No recipient address
Cc: music@lists.fedoraproject.org
Subject: Re: [Fedora-music-list] Naming of Ardour packages
Sent: Friday, May 08, 2015 at 11:09 AM
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?
I think retiring ardour3 at this point is too early - I for one am
still adjusting to the ardour4 interface.
Also, IIUC, you propose to simply add a Provides: ardour to the latest
ardourN package to ensure that a dnf install ardour always installs
the latest ardour package. The problem is that that will break for
anyone currently with the current ardour (i.e.. ardour 2) package
installed. After switching the package names as you suggest, when that
person runs a dnf update, they'll get ardour4 installed as an update
to their old ardour package (which contained ardour 2). They'd then
need to do a dnf install adrdour2 (and optionally dnf remove ardour).
Perhaps this isn't too much of an inconvenience, but I thought I
should flag it.
Thanks for working on packaging ardour, I for one am very grateful.
Jonathan
_______________________________________________
music mailing list
music(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/music
2:52 p.m.
Hi Jonathan,
On Fri, 2015-05-08 at 18:43 +0100, Jonathan Underwood wrote:
> Sent: Friday, May 08, 2015 at 11:09 AM
> 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?
I think retiring ardour3 at this point is too early - I for one am
still adjusting to the ardour4 interface.
my plan is to only retire it in not yet released Fedora versions, for
the reasons you outlined.
Also, IIUC, you propose to simply add a Provides: ardour to the
latest
ardourN package to ensure that a dnf install ardour always installs
the latest ardour package. The problem is that that will break for
anyone currently with the current ardour (i.e.. ardour 2) package
installed. After switching the package names as you suggest, when that
person runs a dnf update, they'll get ardour4 installed as an update
to their old ardour package (which contained ardour 2). They'd then
need to do a dnf install adrdour2 (and optionally dnf remove ardour).
Perhaps this isn't too much of an inconvenience, but I thought I
should flag it.
It wouldn't work that way, only if ardour4 obsoleted ardour < 2.8.16-16
in our case. A mere Provides wouldn't do that.
Thanks for working on packaging ardour, I for one am very grateful.
You're welcome,
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
4:17 p.m.
On Fri, 2015-05-08 at 19:36 +0200, be.0(a)gmx.com wrote:
That sounds like the most reasonable solution to me. Can we make this
happen for Fedora 22 or is it too late for that?
If someone reviews the ardour2 in time, why not?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1219948
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
10:11 a.m.
I now see ardour, ardour2, ardour3, and ardour4 in the F22 repo, but
'dnf install ardour' still installs 2.8.16-13.fc22.
On 05/08/2015 04:17 PM, Nils Philippsen wrote:
On Fri, 2015-05-08 at 19:36 +0200, be.0(a)gmx.com wrote:
> That sounds like the most reasonable solution to me. Can we make this happen for
Fedora 22 or is it too late for that?
If someone reviews the ardour2 in time, why not?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1219948
Nils
11:10 a.m.
I don't know how it is managed, but in the GUI "Software", Ardour (2) is in
the featured audio section, while Ardour3 is in Other Audio section.
I am using Fed 21.
Regards
Bruno
On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 5:11 PM Be <be.0(a)gmx.com> wrote:
I now see ardour, ardour2, ardour3, and ardour4 in the F22 repo, but
'dnf install ardour' still installs 2.8.16-13.fc22.
On 05/08/2015 04:17 PM, Nils Philippsen wrote:
> On Fri, 2015-05-08 at 19:36 +0200, be.0(a)gmx.com wrote:
>> That sounds like the most reasonable solution to me. Can we make this
happen for Fedora 22 or is it too late for that?
> If someone reviews the ardour2 in time, why not?
>
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1219948
>
> Nils
_______________________________________________
music mailing list
music(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/music
5:45 a.m.
On Tue, 2015-06-02 at 10:11 -0500, Be wrote:
I now see ardour, ardour2, ardour3, and ardour4 in the F22 repo, but
'dnf install ardour' still installs 2.8.16-13.fc22.
Yeah, we were a little to late to get the ardour package retired for F
-22 (and retiring packages in a stable Fedora release isn't allowed).
Brendan, would you please retire the "ardour" package in Rawhide/F-23+?
I'll do the same for "ardour3" so that we'll end up with just ardour2
for legacy sessions, and ardour4 which uses the same file format as
ardour3.
As to "dnf install ardour", I could add "Provides: ardour = ..." to
the
spec file of ardour4 but I'm a bit sceptical about its usefulness
beyond that.
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
3247
days inactive
3273
days old
15 comments
7 participants
participants (7)
-
Be -
Brian Monroe -
Bruno Vernay -
Jonathan Underwood -
Kevin Cosgrove -
Martin Tarenskeen -
Nils Philippsen