Fwd: ardour3 4.1~dfsg-1 MIGRATED to testing

Jaromír Mikeš mira.mikes at gmail.com
Fri Sep 11 20:38:32 UTC 2015

2015-09-11 21:48 GMT+02:00 IOhannes m zmölnig <zmoelnig at umlaeute.mur.at>:
> On 09/11/2015 09:14 PM, Jaromír Mikeš wrote:
>> What about renaming man pages from ardour4.1 to ardour.1 ? also entry
>> in ardour.manpages file
>> Same for ardour4.xpm -> ardour.xpm and entry in menu file
> but is there any harm in having them called "ardour4"?


>> Now when we will have just one ardour it should be fine.
> maybe i missed that: but what was the plan for fading out ardour3?
> ah yes, adrian wrote:
>> drop ardour3 after jessie+1
> which means that ardour3 will be hanging around for some time.
> maybe we should just setup some alternatives for "ardour" (pointing to
> both "ardour3" and "ardour4" with the latter having the higher priority).
> or just ignore it.

maybe it is fine to ignore it ... if not we have bug tracking system ;)

> in any case, i see little reason to *remove* the "ardour4" binary:
> people might have scripts that explicitely refer to a versioned ardour.


>> There are also ardour4 entry in desktop file ... are they correct?
> dunno, they look fine to me;
> do you have anything specific in mind.

I just was not sure if binary now build is really ardour4 or just ardour

>> I think also some arch64 conditional optimization would be great.
>> Something like this in rules file:
>> ifneq (,$(findstring :$(DEB_HOST_ARCH_CPU):,:amd64:))
>> CXXFLAGS+=-msse -msse2 -mfpmath=sse
>> endif
> i'd suggest we do this *after* the new packages have been uploaded.




More information about the pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list