Page 1 of 2

Re: ardour3 package will not be available anymore

Posted: Fri May 11, 2012 9:59 pm
by i2productions
Wow, that chat log seemed kinda rude. I can understand not wanting SVN's packaged, but no even wanting u to package beta? Although it's one of the few linux packages u just download from ardour.org and double click to install, so basicly any user should be able to do it. And I'm praying for beta4 soon!

Re: ardour3 package will not be available anymore

Posted: Fri May 11, 2012 11:35 pm
by slowpick
It was clearly stated on the ardour website, but perhaps a giant all caps font was needed
to make people take it seriously.

Re: ardour3 package will not be available anymore

Posted: Sat May 12, 2012 5:02 am
by epicM
What about your "non-free" (ie Windows) programs? Do you have their creators' permission to package them?

Does Launchpad know you're including Windows apps in your ppa?

Re: ardour3 package will not be available anymore

Posted: Sat May 12, 2012 6:51 am
by brummer
epicM wrote:Does Launchpad know you're including Windows apps in your ppa?
As far I can see there isn't a problem with hosting proprietary App's on Launchpad (Launchpad isn't debian):
http://blog.launchpad.net/cool-new-stuf ... ts-quickly
not that I like that much, but that the way it is.

Re: ardour3 package will not be available anymore

Posted: Sat May 12, 2012 7:44 am
by slowpick
falkTX wrote:
slowpick wrote:It was clearly stated on the ardour website, but perhaps a giant all caps font was needed
to make people take it seriously.
it was very clear when it was alpha, and on that time I refused to packaged it (the 1:1 alpha tarball copy is an exception here).
But when a product enters beta state, it means it's ready for enthusiasts to try and check it out.
Right now it's on Beta3, one would expect they would be more ok with it, no?

anyway, less work for me, and I don't use Ardour at all.
beta just means unfinished, who has access to any alpha or beta or pre-release
yada yada is up to the author. Ardour is a unique case, the flagship linux DAW, while also
linked in the business world to Mixbus. Having search engines load up on user complaints
and confusion would be bad for business. With several good daws already on the market,
and prices falling, Ardour needs every advantage to establish itself.

If linux media devs all started working together, Avid and Steinberg would have to start making
video games for a living. :)

Re: ardour3 package will not be available anymore

Posted: Sat May 12, 2012 10:12 am
by brummer
falkTX wrote: @brummer:
You can only have proprietary apps in Launchpad if you are the author of them.
Here's some background - https://answers.launchpad.net/launchpad/+question/93921
Great, I'm happy that I get this wrong. :D

Only here it is mention that it is possible to host close source applications along with a open source project:
https://answers.launchpad.net/launchpad/+question/52348
So the situation seems to be a bit unclear at all.

Re: ardour3 package will not be available anymore

Posted: Sat May 12, 2012 5:15 pm
by Jaaxx
I've had similar discussions with Paul and co in the past, back when I used to do audio packaging for PCLinuxOS and RocXshoP. They were having major headaches with bugfixing Ardour 2 because there were dozens of packages out there compiled against dozens of different versioned libraries. That's when the decision was made to release 3.0 "bundled" with static libs so that everyone is on the same page so to speak.

It actually makes a lot of sense when you are dealing with such a complex set of libs that are constantly in flux.

However, I'm not sure I agree with what they have done as of yesterday, which is purposely disabling a feature (in this case ./waf install) to sabotage anyone's effort to build from SVN on their own. Sure you can still build and run it via ./ardev, but you really can't package it for distribution. Well, you can, just not with any reasonable amount of effort. It's a shame that people without the skills necessary to build A3 on their own can't follow along with the development.

Re: ardour3 package will not be available anymore

Posted: Sun May 13, 2012 11:21 am
by slowpick
Jaaxx wrote: It's a shame that people without the skills necessary to build A3 on their own can't follow along with the development.
the point of them releasing mouseclick
installers is so windows-level people CAN test it, and report issues, without polluting
cyberspace, and future search engine results, with epic sagas and dire misinformation,
that will hurt their families financial well-being.

RocXshoP is a cool distro, went way far under the radar. Still use pclinuxos
and Puppy Studio for recording, none of that buntu drama and
endless config nightmares waking like zombies with each release candidate :wink:

Re: ardour3 package will not be available anymore

Posted: Sun May 13, 2012 12:00 pm
by funkmuscle
slowpick wrote: RocXshoP is a cool distro, went way far under the radar. Still use pclinuxos
and Puppy Studio for recording, none of that buntu drama and
endless config nightmares waking like zombies with each release candidate :wink:
I'm with you there about the Buntus... you do make sense on the Ardour reasons.. I guess some kinda control would be nice.

Re: ardour3 package will not be available anymore

Posted: Tue May 29, 2012 5:43 pm
by i2productions
Now that Ardour3 beta 4a has been released I just wana go out on a limb and say, THIS IS NOW THE BEST, MOST COMPLETE PIECE OF LINUX AUDIO SOFTWARE OUT THERE!! I was finally able to accomplish an entire song(very basic 4/4 house track, but just a test) in a 1 hour sitting using Ardour 3 and Reason 5(via wineasio) without any glitches, bugs, or force quits! I see why they say this is the last beta. It's finally all coming together. Pro Tools watch out, you've got a run for your money!

Re: ardour3 package will not be available anymore

Posted: Tue May 29, 2012 5:46 pm
by karm
falkTX wrote:Maybe they'll not want packaging even when the final 3.0 version is out?
I think sarcasm is not necessary. Sure, they could be a little more polite but on the other hand they made themselves clear they do not want packaging for some reason and taking their work into account I think it would be better to just respect that and wait for final release.