Hi Adrian On 2015-04-19 14:13:02, Adrian Knoth wrote: > Just wanted to let you know that I'm mostly done with packaging > ardour4.0 (released yesterday). > > I'm currently building in pbuilder and will report back later. > > Note that the package is still called ardour3 with a version set to > 4.0~dfsg-1. > > Alternatively, we drop/rename ardour to ardour2 and leave the name > "ardour" to the newest major release. > > Last not least, we should probably cut down on the number of ardour > versions in Debian. Nobody supports a2 anymore, same for a3. It's a > rolling release, and only the newest version makes sense. > > Upstream is only rolling forward, never backporting. That said: > > * make ardour(4) the only version in Debian > > What I'm saying here is that we're going to release jessie with a > version of ardour nobody cares about anymore. And I'm fine with that. We > can continue providing FTBFS fixes in case they arise, but I'm not going > to look at any bugreports against a3 containing runtime segfaults or the > like, because they're probably already fixed in a4. > > Ardour seems exactly the kind of software where the classic > distribution model falls apart, similar to Firefox or Chrome. All we do > is play catching up with upstream. > > So here's the suggestion. Instead of > > ardour -> a2 > ardour3 -> a3 > ardour4 -> a4 > > I propose > > ardour -> a4 > ardour3 -> a3 (legacy tree for jessie) > drop ardour3 after jessie+1 (what's the new codename? ;) )
Is there a reason to keep old ardour versions around? Cheers -- Sebastian Ramacher
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers