-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 2015-09-14 05:55, Jaromír Mikeš wrote:
> 2015-09-13 22:38 GMT+02:00 IOhannes m zmölnig
> :
>> On 09/13/2015 08:50 PM, IOhannes m zmölnig wrote:
>>> i'm also just building ardour, and if everything goes well
>>> will (re-build and) upload it to uns
Hi Fabian,
Quoting Fabian Greffrath (2015-09-14 07:30:05)
> Am Sonntag, den 13.09.2015, 19:58 +0200 schrieb IOhannes m zmölnig:
>> personally i'm in favour of using it, but i only recently got
>> involved.
>
> For those not involved, could you point me to a *single* advantage of
> this workflow?
Am Sonntag, den 13.09.2015, 19:58 +0200 schrieb IOhannes m zmölnig:
> personally i'm in favour of using it, but i only recently got involved.
For those not involved, could you point me to a *single* advantage of
this workflow? The only difference I am able to point out is two nearly
identical file
2015-09-13 22:38 GMT+02:00 IOhannes m zmölnig :
> On 09/13/2015 08:50 PM, IOhannes m zmölnig wrote:
>> i'm also just building ardour, and if everything goes well will
>> (re-build and) upload it to unstable tonight.
>
> uploaded.
>
> i'll upload the revised version of "ardour3" as soon as "ardour"
On 09/13/2015 08:50 PM, IOhannes m zmölnig wrote:
> i'm also just building ardour, and if everything goes well will
> (re-build and) upload it to unstable tonight.
uploaded.
i'll upload the revised version of "ardour3" as soon as "ardour" enters
unstable.
mfgdsar
IOhannes
signature.asc
Descri
On 09/13/2015 08:29 PM, Jaromír Mikeš wrote:
>
> I am not very skilled with cdbs, but I believe I will get used by time.
> As you and probably Adrian too are fine with control.in file ... I
> would say lets use it.
i added another note to README.source that explicit mentions control.in
and how to
2015-09-13 19:58 GMT+02:00 IOhannes m zmölnig :
> On 09/13/2015 08:45 AM, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
>>>
>>> Should I edit control.in file and regenerate control file?
>>>
>>> This do the magic?
>>> DEB_AUTO_UPDATE_DEBIAN_CONTROL=yes fakeroot debian/rules clean
>>
>> I just added a README.source about
On 09/13/2015 08:45 AM, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
>>
>> Should I edit control.in file and regenerate control file?
>>
>> This do the magic?
>> DEB_AUTO_UPDATE_DEBIAN_CONTROL=yes fakeroot debian/rules clean
>
> I just added a README.source about that.
thanks.
>
> You don't need to use CDBS - e.g.
Hi Jaromír,
Quoting Jaromír Mikeš (2015-09-13 07:41:38)
> 2015-09-12 21:25 GMT+02:00 Jaromír Mikeš :
> BTW I just edit control file ... not control.in ...
> I am still not sure how "control.in" works in cdbs... maybe it is
> right time to ask.
>
> Should I edit control.in file and regenerate cont
2015-09-12 21:25 GMT+02:00 Jaromír Mikeš :
> 2015-09-12 17:30 GMT+02:00 Jaromír Mikeš :
>> 2015-09-12 16:30 GMT+02:00 IOhannes m zmölnig :
>>> On 09/12/2015 09:46 AM, Jaromír Mikeš wrote:
>
What about introducing ardour-data or ardour-common package?
We could ship some files in arch-indep
2015-09-12 17:30 GMT+02:00 Jaromír Mikeš :
> 2015-09-12 16:30 GMT+02:00 IOhannes m zmölnig :
>> On 09/12/2015 09:46 AM, Jaromír Mikeš wrote:
>>> What about introducing ardour-data or ardour-common package?
>>> We could ship some files in arch-indep package.
>>> Like:
>>> usr/share/ardour4/*
>>
>>
2015-09-12 16:30 GMT+02:00 IOhannes m zmölnig :
> On 09/12/2015 09:46 AM, Jaromír Mikeš wrote:
>> I: ardour: font-in-non-font-package usr/share/ardour4/ArdourMono.ttf
>>
>> Same here ... ArdourMono.ttf is not font file
>
> what else is it?
>
> $ file gtk2_ardour/ArdourMono.ttf
> gtk2_ardour/Ardour
On 09/12/2015 09:46 AM, Jaromír Mikeš wrote:
> 2015-09-11 21:14 GMT+02:00 Jaromír Mikeš :
>>
>> Sorry I am not still at my working machine .. :( ... busy day for me
>
> I finally get time to build ardour ...
>
> I: ardour: spelling-error-in-binary usr/lib/ardour4/ardour-4.2.0
> ABitrate Arbitrate
2015-09-11 21:14 GMT+02:00 Jaromír Mikeš :
>
> Sorry I am not still at my working machine .. :( ... busy day for me
I finally get time to build ardour ...
I: ardour: spelling-error-in-binary usr/lib/ardour4/ardour-4.2.0
ABitrate Arbitrate
I: ardour: spelling-error-in-copyright Taht That
I: ardour
On 09/11/2015 10:38 PM, Jaromír Mikeš wrote:
>>>
>>> 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
>
>
ah i see.
wh
Am Freitag, den 11.09.2015, 21:14 +0200 schrieb Jaromír Mikeš:
> ifneq (,$(findstring :$(DEB_HOST_ARCH_CPU):,:amd64:))
> CXXFLAGS+=-msse -msse2 -mfpmath=sse
> endif
Please don't second-guess the compiler, it will choose "the right flags" [tm]
on amd64.
- Fabian
signature.asc
Description: This
2015-09-11 21:48 GMT+02:00 IOhannes m zmölnig :
> 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
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
2015-09-11 16:42 GMT+02:00 IOhannes m zmölnig :
> On 09/11/2015 04:24 PM, Jaromír Mikeš wrote:
>>>
>>> anyhow, if creating a debugging package is as simple as adding
>>> DEB_DH_STRIP_ARGS := --dbg-package=ardour-dbg
>>> to the rules, there's no reason not to do it...
>>
>> That would be great! Th
2015-09-11 16:42 GMT+02:00 IOhannes m zmölnig :
> On 09/11/2015 04:24 PM, Jaromír Mikeš wrote:
>>>
>>> anyhow, if creating a debugging package is as simple as adding
>>> DEB_DH_STRIP_ARGS := --dbg-package=ardour-dbg
>>> to the rules, there's no reason not to do it...
>>
>> That would be great! Th
On 09/11/2015 04:24 PM, Jaromír Mikeš wrote:
>>
>> anyhow, if creating a debugging package is as simple as adding
>> DEB_DH_STRIP_ARGS := --dbg-package=ardour-dbg
>> to the rules, there's no reason not to do it...
>
> That would be great! Thank you IOhannes!
>
well, done and pushed.
btw, feel
Now to the list :(
-- Forwarded message --
From: Jaromír Mikeš
Date: 2015-09-11 16:24 GMT+02:00
Subject: Re: ardour3 4.1~dfsg-1 MIGRATED to testing
To: IOhannes m zmölnig
2015-09-11 15:26 GMT+02:00 IOhannes m zmölnig :
> On 09/11/2015 03:57 AM, Jaromír Mikeš wrote:
>>
On 09/11/2015 03:57 AM, Jaromír Mikeš wrote:
>> the new "ardour" package will be exactly a single "ardour" binary
>> package (no more -dbg, -i686 and -altivec packages) - should we add
>> "Provides" for those who need that?
>
> No sure about -i686 and -altivec
i created transitional packages, as
Am Donnerstag, den 10.09.2015, 23:46 +0200 schrieb IOhannes m zmölnig:
> the new "ardour" package will be exactly a single "ardour" binary
> package (no more -dbg, -i686 and -altivec packages) - should we add
> "Provides" for those who need that?
Cleanest solution would be to provide transitional
2015-09-10 23:46 GMT+02:00 IOhannes m zmölnig :
> On 09/10/2015 09:34 PM, IOhannes m zmölnig wrote:
>> On 09/10/2015 12:01 PM, Jaromír Mikeš wrote:
>>>
>>> IOhannes can you please look at it? I am not sure if wouldn't mess it :(
>>
>> working on it.
>
> ok, pushed both ardour3 and ardour.
Great!
On 09/10/2015 09:34 PM, IOhannes m zmölnig wrote:
> On 09/10/2015 12:01 PM, Jaromír Mikeš wrote:
>>
>> IOhannes can you please look at it? I am not sure if wouldn't mess it :(
>
> working on it.
ok, pushed both ardour3 and ardour.
needs testing of upgrading & coninstallability before an upload.
On 09/10/2015 11:40 AM, Adrian Knoth wrote:
>>> it will loose the git packaging history of ardour3.
> I don't think so (as explained above):
>
> http://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/pkg-multimedia/ardour3.git/log/
i *think* i meant that the ardour repository will not contain the
history from the ardo
On 09/10/2015 12:01 PM, Jaromír Mikeš wrote:
>
> IOhannes can you please look at it? I am not sure if wouldn't mess it :(
working on it.
gfmadsr
IOhannes
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing li
2015-09-10 11:40 GMT+02:00 Adrian Knoth :
> On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 11:17:39AM +0200, Jaromír Mikeš wrote:
>
>> >> This still stands, I just uploaded 4.2 under the old name "ardour3" due
>> >> to lack of time.
>> >> Just mentioning. Whoever has spare cycles, feel free to go ahead.
>> >
>> > so what
On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 11:17:39AM +0200, Jaromír Mikeš wrote:
> >> This still stands, I just uploaded 4.2 under the old name "ardour3" due
> >> to lack of time.
> >> Just mentioning. Whoever has spare cycles, feel free to go ahead.
> >
> > so what would the transition look like?
> >
> > "ardour3"
2015-08-25 17:05 GMT+02:00 forum::für::umläute :
> On 2015-08-25 15:29, Adrian Knoth wrote:
>>
>> This still stands, I just uploaded 4.2 under the old name "ardour3" due
>> to lack of time.
>>
>> Just mentioning. Whoever has spare cycles, feel free to go ahead.
>
> so what would the transition look
On 2015-08-25 15:29, Adrian Knoth wrote:
>
> This still stands, I just uploaded 4.2 under the old name "ardour3" due
> to lack of time.
>
> Just mentioning. Whoever has spare cycles, feel free to go ahead.
>
so what would the transition look like?
"ardour3" package:
- switch back to "master" b
On 07/20/15 16:28, Adrian Knoth wrote:
Ardour3 version 4.1
Seriously?
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-multimedia-maintainers/2015-April/043650.html
This exactly.
It may not be a big deal (new versions of ardour an load old sessions),
but for a bit-exact re-export of older ses
On 07/09/15 11:41, IOhannes m zmölnig wrote:
FYI: The status of the ardour3 source package
in Debian's testing distribution has changed.
Previous version: 4.0~dfsg1-1
Current version: 4.1~dfsg-1
Ardour3 version 4.1
Seriously?
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-multimedia-main
On 07/08/2015 06:47 PM, Robin Gareus wrote:
> On 07/08/2015 06:39 PM, Debian testing watch wrote:
>> FYI: The status of the ardour3 source package
>> in Debian's testing distribution has changed.
>>
>> Previous version: 4.0~dfsg1-1
>> Current version: 4.1~dfsg-1
>>
>
> Ardour3 version 4.1
>
On 07/08/2015 06:39 PM, Debian testing watch wrote:
> FYI: The status of the ardour3 source package
> in Debian's testing distribution has changed.
>
> Previous version: 4.0~dfsg1-1
> Current version: 4.1~dfsg-1
>
Ardour3 version 4.1
Seriously?
Why is the package name not Ardour4? Can th
FYI: The status of the ardour3 source package
in Debian's testing distribution has changed.
Previous version: 4.0~dfsg1-1
Current version: 4.1~dfsg-1
--
This email is automatically generated once a day. As the installation of
new packages into testing happens multiple times a day you will
37 matches
Mail list logo
