On Mon, 2010-08-23 at 14:03 +0200, Philipp Überbacher wrote: > Excerpts from Ty John (sand_man)'s message of 2010-08-23 13:53:51 +0200: > > On Mon, 2010-08-23 at 19:30 +0800, Ray Rashif wrote: > > > On 23 August 2010 19:25, Ty John (sand_man) <ty...@eye-of-odin.com> wrote: > > > > On Mon, 2010-08-23 at 12:24 +0200, Philipp Überbacher wrote: > > > >> Excerpts from Ty John (sand_man)'s message of 2010-08-23 12:13:11 > > > >> +0200: > > > >> > I noticed this package is currently unmaintained. > > > >> > Can I adopt this? > > > >> > > > >> Please do so, if you think it's still needed. > > > >> I orphaned it because I lost interest in the program, but afaik in the > > > >> meantime there's hardly a difference between this package and the one > > > >> in > > > >> [extra]. > > > > > > > > I can't believe I didn't see the 'adopt' button. > > > > > > > > Yeah I wasn't sure if it's the same or not. Does the one in extra > > > > support lv2 plugins? It doesn't seem to be specifically compiled in the > > > > same way. > > > > I'll keep it updated for now. > > > > > > Yes, extra/ardour is compiled with LV2 support. The only difference > > > between the two different binaries would be whatever change is > > > influenced by having FFT_ANALYSIS. > > > > > > > > > -- > > > GPG/PGP ID: B42DDCAD > > > > > > > I see. > > FFT is an audio visualisation tool. I guess this package probably > > shouldn't really be called -lv2 then. > > When I created it, the [extra] package wasn't built with lv2 support > (slv2 wasn't in [extra] either). It appeared sensible at the time, > because lv2 support was the major difference.
\me goes to uninstall ardour-lv2 and update from extra =). Thanks, you're right, the lv2 support was the big difference. I recommend ardour-lv2 can be removed, since its not required anymore with [extra] having lv2 support.