Re: Fwd: ardour3 4.1~dfsg-1 MIGRATED to testing

[Jonas Smedegaard]

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? The only difference I am able to point out is two 
> nearly identical files and a list of backslash-escaped Build-Depends 
> in debian/rules instead of debian/control.

Some build-dependencies directly tied to build system in use is computed 
by CDBS.

For example which exact version of which python or python-dev packages 
you need to depend on with python-central and how to adjust when 
switching to dh_python/dh_python3.

Additional build-dependencies can be computed based on 
other variables available in rules file.

If for example you want to temporarily drop a problematic 
build-dependency, you could do so conditional to the suite being 
experimental (to help ensure it is not forgotten later on - which 
perhaps is prepared by others than yourself).

It may also help keep track of featuresets (e.g. when some are disabled 
for longer times) when build-dependencies, binary dependencies, 
configure options and custom rules can be grouped.  See the ghostscript 
package for an example of that (all features are enabled nowadays, but 
previously there was some juggling with which jpeg library to use that 
needed several different things enabled/disabled in concert).


 - Jonas

-- 
 * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
 * Tlf.: +45 40843136  Website: http://dr.jones.dk/

 [x] quote me freely  [ ] ask before reusing  [ ] keep private


signature.asc
Description: signature
___
pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list
pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers

Re: Fwd: ardour3 4.1~dfsg-1 MIGRATED to testing

[Debian/GNU]

-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 unstable tonight.
>> 
>> uploaded.
>> 
>> i'll upload the revised version of "ardour3" as soon as "ardour"
>> enters unstable.
> 
> I think we should forward your spelling patch upstream?

already done (but did not update the patch-header, as i don't know the
committish)

> Push debian tag pls ;)
> 

i thought about pushing them once ardour has been accepted into unstable
.

i'll probably push them anyhow now...

fgmasdr
IOhannes

___
pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list
pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers

Re: Fwd: ardour3 4.1~dfsg-1 MIGRATED to testing

[Jonas Smedegaard]

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 control file?
>
> This do the magic?
> DEB_AUTO_UPDATE_DEBIAN_CONTROL=yes fakeroot debian/rules clean

I just added a README.source about that.

You don't need to use CDBS - e.g. regenerate control from control.in - 
to contribute to a CDBS-based package: You can leave that to others 
finalizing the packaging who like CDBS.

...but since you ask, perhaps you wanna like it :-)

Yes, above command refreshes control from control.in specifically.

This command does the same and may enable other CDBS features¹ too:

  debian/rules clean DEB_MAINTAINER_MODE=1

NB! When regenerating control, double-check that the result is really 
what you want before committing it - e.g. if someone before you edited 
control then you need to first mirror those changes to control.in to not 
effectively revert their changes.


 - Jonas

¹ My favorite is that it treats changes to copyright hints as fatal - 
but apparently ardour does not track copyright hints.  Yet...

-- 
 * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
 * Tlf.: +45 40843136  Website: http://dr.jones.dk/

 [x] quote me freely  [ ] ask before reusing  [ ] keep private


signature.asc
Description: signature
___
pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list
pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers

Re: Fwd: ardour3 4.1~dfsg-1 MIGRATED to testing

[Jaromír Mikeš]

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 that.
>
> thanks.

Thank you Jonas for clarifying ;)

>>
>> You don't need to use CDBS - e.g. regenerate control from control.in -
>> to contribute to a CDBS-based package: You can leave that to others
>> finalizing the packaging who like CDBS.
>
> ithink this is sound advice for irregular contributors.
>
> but if there are 2-3 people doing the actual maintenance of the package,
> i think it preferrably if all of them used the same workflow. (and
> everybody knows how to perform those recurring tasks).
> in our case: either "ardour" packaging uses control.in or not (in which
> case the file should be deleted)
>
> personally i'm in favour of using it, but i only recently got involved.

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.

mira

___
pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list
pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers

Re: Fwd: ardour3 4.1~dfsg-1 MIGRATED to testing

[IOhannes m zmölnig]

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 handle it as a quick reference.

i'm also just building ardour, and if everything goes well will
(re-build and) upload it to unstable tonight.

...unless you think i missed something...

gfrdsa
IOhannes



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list
pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers

Re: Fwd: ardour3 4.1~dfsg-1 MIGRATED to testing

[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" enters
unstable.

mfgdsar
IOhannes



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list
pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers

Re: Fwd: ardour3 4.1~dfsg-1 MIGRATED to testing

[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 that.

thanks.

> 
> You don't need to use CDBS - e.g. regenerate control from control.in - 
> to contribute to a CDBS-based package: You can leave that to others 
> finalizing the packaging who like CDBS.

ithink this is sound advice for irregular contributors.

but if there are 2-3 people doing the actual maintenance of the package,
i think it preferrably if all of them used the same workflow. (and
everybody knows how to perform those recurring tasks).
in our case: either "ardour" packaging uses control.in or not (in which
case the file should be deleted)

personally i'm in favour of using it, but i only recently got involved.


gfasmrd
IOhannes



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list
pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers

Re: Fwd: ardour3 4.1~dfsg-1 MIGRATED to testing

[Jaromír Mikeš]

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" enters
> unstable.

I think we should forward your spelling patch upstream?
Push debian tag pls ;)

regards

mira

___
pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list
pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers

Re: Fwd: ardour3 4.1~dfsg-1 MIGRATED to testing

[Fabian Greffrath]

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 files and a list of backslash-escaped Build-Depends in
debian/rules instead of debian/control.

 - Fabian


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
___
pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list
pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers

Re: Fwd: ardour3 4.1~dfsg-1 MIGRATED to testing

[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 package.
>>> Like:
>>> usr/share/ardour4/*
>>
>> yes, i think that would be a good idea.
>
> Working on ardour-data package

Ok ... I am quite happy with ardour-data package now.
Can you have a look IOhannes please?
Do you still see something what we should fix before uploading?

regards

mira

___
pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list
pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers

Re: Fwd: ardour3 4.1~dfsg-1 MIGRATED to testing

[Jaromír Mikeš]

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 package.
 Like:
 usr/share/ardour4/*
>>>
>>> yes, i think that would be a good idea.
>>
>> Working on ardour-data package
>
> Ok ... I am quite happy with ardour-data package now.
> Can you have a look IOhannes please?
> Do you still see something what we should fix before uploading?

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 control file?

This do the magic?
DEB_AUTO_UPDATE_DEBIAN_CONTROL=yes fakeroot debian/rules clean

regards

mira

___
pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list
pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers

Re: Fwd: ardour3 4.1~dfsg-1 MIGRATED to testing

[Jaromír Mikeš]

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-i686: spelling-error-in-copyright Taht That
I: ardour-dbg: spelling-error-in-copyright Taht That

I think we can override these warnings ... as these are not spelling errors

I: ardour: font-in-non-font-package usr/share/ardour4/ArdourMono.ttf

Same here ... ArdourMono.ttf is not font file

I: ardour: arch-dep-package-has-big-usr-share 8440kB 25%

What about introducing ardour-data or ardour-common package?
We could ship some files in arch-indep package.
Like:
usr/share/ardour4/*

I am just trying make source.lintian-override file ;)

mira

___
pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list
pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers

Re: Fwd: ardour3 4.1~dfsg-1 MIGRATED to testing

[Jaromír Mikeš]

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/ArdourMono.ttf: TrueType font data
>
> so please undo the lintian-override for that.
>
> either we ignore the lintian *Informational* warning, or we factor out
> the font into a "fonts-ardour" package.
> but we shouldn't override a true positive.

I thought the suffix of file is TTL not TTF . and I thought it is
some LV2 file  Do I need better eyes as Christmas present?

:(

I will remove this override

>> I: ardour: arch-dep-package-has-big-usr-share 8440kB 25%
>>
>> What about introducing ardour-data or ardour-common package?
>> We could ship some files in arch-indep package.
>> Like:
>> usr/share/ardour4/*
>
> yes, i think that would be a good idea.

Working on ardour-data package

mira

___
pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list
pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers

Re: Fwd: ardour3 4.1~dfsg-1 MIGRATED to testing

[IOhannes m zmölnig]

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
> I: ardour: spelling-error-in-copyright Taht That
> I: ardour-i686: spelling-error-in-copyright Taht That
> I: ardour-dbg: spelling-error-in-copyright Taht That
> 
> I think we can override these warnings ... as these are not spelling errors

yes.

> 
> 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/ArdourMono.ttf: TrueType font data

so please undo the lintian-override for that.

either we ignore the lintian *Informational* warning, or we factor out
the font into a "fonts-ardour" package.
but we shouldn't override a true positive.

> 
> I: ardour: arch-dep-package-has-big-usr-share 8440kB 25%
> 
> What about introducing ardour-data or ardour-common package?
> We could ship some files in arch-indep package.
> Like:
> usr/share/ardour4/*

yes, i think that would be a good idea.


mgfasrd
IOhannes




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list
pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers

Re: ardour3 4.1~dfsg-1 MIGRATED to testing

[Fabian Greffrath]

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 packages, or not?

 - Fabian


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
___
pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list
pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers

Re: Fwd: ardour3 4.1~dfsg-1 MIGRATED to testing

[Jaromír Mikeš]

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! Thank you IOhannes!
>
> well, done and pushed.
>
> btw, feel free to check the packages and free them from remaining issues.

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

Now when we will have just one ardour it should be fine.

There are also ardour4 entry in desktop file ... are they correct?

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

Maybe there is some nicer way in CDBS ?

Sorry I am not still at my working machine .. :( ... busy day for me

mira

___
pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list
pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers

Re: Fwd: ardour3 4.1~dfsg-1 MIGRATED to testing

[Jaromír Mikeš]

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 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
pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers

Re: Fwd: ardour3 4.1~dfsg-1 MIGRATED to testing

[Fabian Greffrath]

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 is a digitally signed message part
___
pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list
pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers

Re: Fwd: ardour3 4.1~dfsg-1 MIGRATED to testing

[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 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.

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 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.

gmdsar
IOhannes



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list
pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers

Re: Fwd: ardour3 4.1~dfsg-1 MIGRATED to testing

[IOhannes m zmölnig]

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.

what i did was:
- used the "ardour3" repo to export the orig.tgz for the 4.* releases
- imported ardour_4.0~dfsg1.orig into the "ardour" repo
- rewound the "ardour3" repo to the commit right-after merging in
upstream/4.0~dfsg1
- copied the entire debian/ folder over to the "ardour" repo.
- replayed the follow-up git commits from the "ardour3" repo onto the
"ardour" repo.
 + but manually re-did the various upstream imports (since i'm not very
confident in replaying branch merges)

in the end, this should give us identical debian/ directories in both
the "ardour" repo and the "ardour3" repo (in the "-a4" family of
branches), and at the same time preserving most of the git-history of
the a4 packaging.
(this is only half-true, as the headlines in debian/copyright needed
adjusting: the source-package name is "ardour" and the version numbers
have an epoch; i accomplished that by tampering with the git-patches)

so after this, the 'ardour' repo would (theoretically) build exactly the
same binary packages as the 'ardour3' repo: a single "ardour" deb,
containing /usr/bin/ardour4

the rest you can see easily in the git history (--since fb0f3ee8)

fgmdsar
IOhannes




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list
pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers

Re: ardour3 4.1~dfsg-1 MIGRATED to testing

[IOhannes m zmölnig]

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 fabian suggested.

> But -dbg  debugging package we should have.

so why hasn't there been an ardour3-dbg_4.2~dfsg-1 package?
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...

fgmadsr
IOhannes




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list
pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers

Fwd: ardour3 4.1~dfsg-1 MIGRATED to testing

[Jaromír Mikeš]

Now to the list :(

-- Forwarded message --
From: Jaromír Mikeš <mira.mi...@gmail.com>
Date: 2015-09-11 16:24 GMT+02:00
Subject: Re: ardour3 4.1~dfsg-1 MIGRATED to testing
To: IOhannes m zmölnig <zmoel...@umlaeute.mur.at>


2015-09-11 15:26 GMT+02:00 IOhannes m zmölnig <zmoel...@umlaeute.mur.at>:
> 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 fabian suggested.
>
>> But -dbg  debugging package we should have.
>
> so why hasn't there been an ardour3-dbg_4.2~dfsg-1 package?

Ehm ... don't know ... there has been dbg package before in ardour package ...
We removed it (for some reason which I don't remember ) and intended
to reintroduce it again.
What didn't happened :(

> 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!

regards

mira

___
pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list
pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers

Re: Fwd: ardour3 4.1~dfsg-1 MIGRATED to testing

[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! Thank you IOhannes!
> 

well, done and pushed.

btw, feel free to check the packages and free them from remaining issues.
e.g. ardour3 has a lintian-error with a too-big menu icon.
i see that the icon was enlarged a while ago to fix #729890, but i
wonder whether this was a policy violation in the first place (or did
policy change to limit icon size recently?)

gfmadsr
IOhannes



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list
pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers

Re: Fwd: ardour3 4.1~dfsg-1 MIGRATED to testing

[Jaromír Mikeš]

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! Thank you IOhannes!
>>
>
> well, done and pushed.
>
> btw, feel free to check the packages and free them from remaining issues.
> e.g. ardour3 has a lintian-error with a too-big menu icon.
> i see that the icon was enlarged a while ago to fix #729890, but i
> wonder whether this was a policy violation in the first place (or did
> policy change to limit icon size recently?)

i don't remember exactly I tried to make icon looks better.
Latter I found better solution ... use svg for with desktop file.  svg
looks good in any resolution
And small 32x32 xmp icon with menu file. menu file doesn't support svg
file if I recalling correctly.

This was ok for linthian

mira

___
pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list
pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers

Re: ardour3 4.1~dfsg-1 MIGRATED to testing

[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 would the transition look like?
> >
> > "ardour3" package:
> > - switch back to "master" branch.

There is little to switch, the old a3 is already the master+upstream
combo, whereas a4 is in master-a4 and upstream-a4. Otherwise ACK.

> > - upload as "1:3.5_dfsg-1" (with added epoch)

ACK.

> > "ardour" package:
> > - import the latest 4.1~dfsg-1
> >  - "pristine-tar" using the tarball from ardour3_4.1~dfsg-1)
> >   - "debian/" (ditto from the ardour2_4.1 package w/o debian/changelog);
> > then basically doing `sed s|ardour3|ardour|g'
> > - add Breaks/Replaces: ardour3<1:3.5
> > - upload as ardour_4.1~dfsg-2

ACK.

> > 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/


SGTM++, feel free to go ahead. And thanks for taking care of this, much
appreciated.

-- 
mail: a...@thur.de  http://adi.thur.de  PGP/GPG: key via keyserver


___
pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list
pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers

Re: ardour3 4.1~dfsg-1 MIGRATED to testing

[Jaromír Mikeš]

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 would the transition look like?
>> >
>> > "ardour3" package:
>> > - switch back to "master" branch.
>
> There is little to switch, the old a3 is already the master+upstream
> combo, whereas a4 is in master-a4 and upstream-a4. Otherwise ACK.
>
>> > - upload as "1:3.5_dfsg-1" (with added epoch)
>
> ACK.
>
>> > "ardour" package:
>> > - import the latest 4.1~dfsg-1
>> >  - "pristine-tar" using the tarball from ardour3_4.1~dfsg-1)
>> >   - "debian/" (ditto from the ardour2_4.1 package w/o debian/changelog);
>> > then basically doing `sed s|ardour3|ardour|g'
>> > - add Breaks/Replaces: ardour3<1:3.5
>> > - upload as ardour_4.1~dfsg-2

Hmmm ...

IOhannes can you please look at it? I am not sure if wouldn't mess it :(
I am also not sure if I can upload this as DM.

mira

___
pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list
pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers

Re: ardour3 4.1~dfsg-1 MIGRATED to testing

[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.

needs testing of upgrading & coninstallability before an upload.

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?


dgsar
IOhannes



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list
pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers

Re: ardour3 4.1~dfsg-1 MIGRATED to testing

[Jaromír Mikeš]

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!

> needs testing of upgrading & coninstallability before an upload.
>
> 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
But -dbg  debugging package we should have.

mira

___
pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list
pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers

Re: ardour3 4.1~dfsg-1 MIGRATED to testing

[IOhannes m zmölnig]

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 list
pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers

Re: ardour3 4.1~dfsg-1 MIGRATED to testing

[IOhannes m zmölnig]

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 ardour3 repository (where it is relevant).
it's minor but sometimes one would like to bisect a decision...


gfmards
IOhannes



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list
pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers

Re: ardour3 4.1~dfsg-1 MIGRATED to testing

[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 like?

ardour3 package:
- switch back to master branch.
- upload as 1:3.5_dfsg-1 (with added epoch)

ardour package:
- import the latest 4.1~dfsg-1
 - pristine-tar using the tarball from ardour3_4.1~dfsg-1)
  - debian/ (ditto from the ardour2_4.1 package w/o debian/changelog);
then basically doing `sed s|ardour3|ardour|g'
- add Breaks/Replaces: ardour31:3.5
- upload as ardour_4.1~dfsg-2


does that sound correct?

it will loose the git packaging history of ardour3.

gfmasdr
IOhannes

___
pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list
pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers

Re: ardour3 4.1~dfsg-1 MIGRATED to testing

[Adrian Knoth]

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 sessions, some users may want to
keep old Ardour2 and Ardour3 versions around.

i don't think we should cater for such an edge case.
if a user insists on using ardour2 on (say) Debian/buster, they can
download the source from the archives and build it themselves.
(probably a better solution would be to have a virtual machine running
Debian/wheezy, as the ecosystem is changing as well).


Agreed.

I'm pretty swamped with work. I might have time on August 8 to work on
it, but no guarantees.

Mira, are you really out for seven weeks or was this a typo and you
meant to write days instead? :) Feel free to move things around
whenever you find time.


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.


Cheers

___
pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list
pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers

Re: ardour3 4.1~dfsg-1 MIGRATED to testing

[Adrian Knoth]

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-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 sessions, some users may want to
keep old Ardour2 and Ardour3 versions around.

i don't think we should cater for such an edge case.
if a user insists on using ardour2 on (say) Debian/buster, they can
download the source from the archives and build it themselves.
(probably a better solution would be to have a virtual machine running
Debian/wheezy, as the ecosystem is changing as well).


Agreed.

I'm pretty swamped with work. I might have time on August 8 to work on
it, but no guarantees.

Mira, are you really out for seven weeks or was this a typo and you
meant to write days instead? :) Feel free to move things around
whenever you find time.


Cheers

___
pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list
pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers

ardour3 4.1~dfsg-1 MIGRATED to testing

[Debian testing watch]

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 receive
later changes on the next day.
See https://release.debian.org/testing-watch/ for more information.

___
pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list
pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers

Re: ardour3 4.1~dfsg-1 MIGRATED to testing

[Robin Gareus]

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 this be changed?

As bonus point, can the ancient ardour package (currently 2.8.11)
become a meta-package depending on the latest version?

It may not be a big deal (new versions of ardour an load old sessions),
but for a bit-exact re-export of older sessions, some users may want to
keep old Ardour2 and Ardour3 versions around. Simply replacing Ardour3
package with Ardour4 strikes me as a bad idea.

ciao,
robin

___
pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list
pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers