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?

> 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.

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.

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

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

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 >> >> >> >

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.