Hi Luke, (I'm cc-ing the other maintainers of the ardour package and the debian-multimedia list as well)
|--==> Luke Yelavich writes: LY> Hi LY> I am a member of the UbuntuStudio team, and helping with ardour 2 LY> packaging. As previously discussed, upstream would prefer if ardour, and LY> ardour2 were separate packages. I have since done this, and have just LY> packaged ardour2.0, rc1. If you would like to use my work as a base for LY> Debian, you can find the source package here: LY> http://www.themuso.id.au/ubuntu/ardour2. LY> Looking forward to future collaboration with Debian on this package, and LY> from hearing from you soon. Thanks! I think it's a good base to start on, however I'm thinking to make a couple of cosmetic changes: - Drop the ardour2-session-exchange (which consists of only one file) and ardour2-doc (very few text files as well) packages and merge them with the actual binary packages [0], this makes things simpler. - Keep the package source name as "ardour" instead of changing it to "ardour2", as the upstream tarball is named ardour-X.Y - Name the binary packages simply "ardour", "ardour-i686" and "ardour-altivec", this will keep the possibility of a parallel install of the old ardour-gtk package, and at the same time if you type "apt-get install ardour" you get ardour 2.0 installed, which is what I intuitively expect to happen. Ciao, Free [0] Note that the ardour manual is currently not included in ardour-doc, nor in the original upstream tarball. If later on we want to package it as well, it would be probably better to make a separate source package, as they do for example with the eximdoc4 package. This give us the possibility to upload the two things separately, without having to rebuild ardour for X archs just to incorporate some new additions in the manual, or to upload the whole manual at every ardour upload. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
