Packaging ardour 4.0

[Adrian Knoth]

On 04/19/15 14:43, Sebastian Ramacher wrote:

> Hi Adrian

Hi!

>> 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?

I've asked upstream about this. A4 can open A3 and A2 sessions, so we're
good to drop at least A2.

We initially started with a separate ardour3 package when a3 was still
in its early stages, so this is how we ended up with two different
packages.

Upstream later changed its development model to continuous releases
(instead of a dedicated development branch - same as the Linux kernel
when they gave up on unstable branches).

With A4 being backwards compatible, I'm even more in favour of re-using
the ardour package name for the purpose of a4.


Cheers