2015-09-11 21:48 GMT+02:00 IOhannes m zmölnig <[email protected]>: > 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"?
No. >> >> 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. Ok >> >> 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. Ok... regards mira _______________________________________________ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list [email protected] http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
