Ardour 2.0 is released and apparently backwards compatible: From http://www.ardour.org/node/895 : "This new version is fully backward-compatible with older releases of Ardour, and can be installed in parallel with them."
Thanks. I've just started working on this, although I was only planning on doing this for F7.
What is the status for this task? Let me know if there is something I can help out with (like testing f.ex.).
changed product version to f7
*** Bug 245705 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Ardour 2.0.5 released: http://www.ardour.org/node/1155
Anthony anything I can do to help? Have you considered using the CCRMA spec file for 2.0?
Ardour 2.1 has been released: http://www.ardour.org/node/1267 Probably best to skip straight to this version as it contains a fix for translation domains that may make it easier to do 0.99 and 2.1 parallel installs (if that is a requirement, I'm not sure it is).
We need to do some tricky coordination with the ccrma repository in order to provide a clean upgrade path. See the thread here: https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-music-list/2007-May/msg00012.html
(In reply to comment #6) > Anthony anything I can do to help? > > Have you considered using the CCRMA spec file for 2.0? > A long time ago I started a 2.0 SRPM. Here it is... http://spindazzle.org/ardour-2.0-1.src.rpm I wanted to preserve the "ardour" name, and not go with "ardour2" as is found in the ccrma repository, however it required some tricky coordination and I never followed through. Hans - if you have time to make this happen I'd be really grateful. Let me know.
Okay, I've made an srpm for 2.1, which merges your (AG) srpm with the latest from CCRMA. Fernando, I'm adding you to the CC, as I'm pretty sure you want to be involved in this. I've made an ardour 2.1 SRPM based of the 2.0 srpm done by Anthony, I've merged in a couple of improvements / fixes from the CCRMA package and added a bunch of packaging fixes myself. I still have to test this in mock to see if the BR's are ok. I've made this obsolete and provide ardour2 so that the current CCRMA users will automatically switch to using the Fedora package. I think updating current Fedora ardour users from ardour 1 to ardour 2 like this will do is ok, especially as always automatically updating to the latest is typically Fedora. Any feedback on the SRPM much appreciated. Once its passed a mock build and has gotten a thumbs up from you 2, I would like to push this to rawhide asap, so don't we won't have an antiquated audour in F-8.
Erm, oops, here is the SRPM: http://people.atrpms.net/~hdegoede/ardour-2.1-2.fc8.src.rpm
(In reply to comment #11) > Erm, oops, here is the SRPM: > http://people.atrpms.net/~hdegoede/ardour-2.1-2.fc8.src.rpm > I tried building this on FC6, which is all I have handy at the moment. Is there some reason it shouldn't build there? + mkdir -p /var/tmp/ardour-2.1-2-root-root/usr/share/applications + desktop-file-install --vendor fedora --dir /var/tmp/ardour-2.1-2-root-root/usr/share/applications /usr/src/redhat/SOURCES/ardour2.desktop /usr/src/redhat/SOURCES/ardour2.desktop: missing encoding (guessed UTF-8) + /usr/lib/rpm/redhat/find-lang.sh /var/tmp/ardour-2.1-2-root-root gtk_ardour No translations found for gtk_ardour in /var/tmp/ardour-2.1-2-root-root error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.3326 (%install) RPM build errors: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.3326 (%install)
(In reply to comment #12) > (In reply to comment #11) > > Erm, oops, here is the SRPM: > > http://people.atrpms.net/~hdegoede/ardour-2.1-2.fc8.src.rpm > > > > I tried building this on FC6, which is all I have handy at the moment. Is there > some reason it shouldn't build there? > > + mkdir -p /var/tmp/ardour-2.1-2-root-root/usr/share/applications > + desktop-file-install --vendor fedora --dir > /var/tmp/ardour-2.1-2-root-root/usr/share/applications > /usr/src/redhat/SOURCES/ardour2.desktop > /usr/src/redhat/SOURCES/ardour2.desktop: missing encoding (guessed UTF-8) > + /usr/lib/rpm/redhat/find-lang.sh /var/tmp/ardour-2.1-2-root-root gtk_ardour > No translations found for gtk_ardour in /var/tmp/ardour-2.1-2-root-root > error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.3326 (%install) > > > RPM build errors: > Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.3326 (%install) The translation is named differently now, the lines should be: ---- %find_lang gtk2_ardour cat gtk2_ardour.lang > ardour.lang %find_lang libardour2 cat libardour2.lang >> ardour.lang %find_lang libgtkmm2ext cat libgtkmm2ext.lang >> ardour.lang ---- The package was probably based on an older version of my spec file: * Fri Sep 28 2007 Fernando Lopez-Lezcano <nando.edu> 2.1-1 - updated to 2.1 - normalize desktop categories to the standard - translations now named gtk2_ardour and libardour2
(In reply to comment #12) > (In reply to comment #11) > > Erm, oops, here is the SRPM: > > http://people.atrpms.net/~hdegoede/ardour-2.1-2.fc8.src.rpm > > > > I tried building this on FC6, which is all I have handy at the moment. Is there > some reason it shouldn't build there? > My fault (as explained by nando) it was late yesterday evening and I wanted to go to to bed. ardour takes ages to build, so I just went ahead an announced my work here, while it was still building. Here is a new tested version: http://people.atrpms.net/~hdegoede/ardour-2.1-3.fc8.src.rpm I still haven't done a mock build to check the buildrequires though. I will be very gratefull, if the 2 of you could give this version a good test run and the spec a quick look over.
This package built cleanly with mock on a rawhide system. However... $ rpmlint /var/lib/mock/fedora-development-i386/result/ardour-2.1-3.fc8.i386.rpm ardour.i386: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/ardour-2.1/DOCUMENTATION/README.fr ardour.i386: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/ardour-2.1/DOCUMENTATION/TRANSLATORS ardour.i386: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/ardour-2.1/DOCUMENTATION/README.it Also, do we really want the binary to be called "ardour2", or just "ardour". Thanks Hans. I believe I've granted you all the access you need for this package as well.
(In reply to comment #15) > This package built cleanly with mock on a rawhide system. > > However... > $ rpmlint /var/lib/mock/fedora-development-i386/result/ardour-2.1-3.fc8.i386.rpm > ardour.i386: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/ardour-2.1/DOCUMENTATION/README.fr > ardour.i386: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/ardour-2.1/DOCUMENTATION/TRANSLATORS > ardour.i386: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/ardour-2.1/DOCUMENTATION/README.it > Hmm, will fix with the next iteration. > Also, do we really want the binary to be called "ardour2", or just "ardour". > Well upstream calls it ardour2, so lets stick with that. > Thanks Hans. I believe I've granted you all the access you need for this > package as well. Your welcome, and thanks. So is there anything beside the non UTF-8 encoding that needs doing before pushing this? Also push to F-7 updates-testing? I tend to just pushing ot to rawhide for now.
(In reply to comment #16) > So is there anything beside the non UTF-8 encoding that needs doing before > pushing this? I don't think so. > Also push to F-7 updates-testing? I tend to just pushing ot to rawhide for now. I don't have a strong opinion. Personally, I'm skipping from FC-6 to F-8 for my main system. I'll note, however, that this bug was originally filed against F-7.
(In reply to comment #16) > Also push to F-7 updates-testing? I tend to just pushing ot to rawhide for now. I don't really mind if F7 would stay with the old version. Personally, I like to keep my packages on the same version for all Fedora versions, it reduces work in most cases. But that's your call.
I've commited and build my latest version + encoding fixes to rawhide, so I guess this can be closed now.