[Ardour-Users] Ardour 2.8 released

[Paul Davis]

On Sat, Mar 28, 2009 at 1:48 PM, Fernando Lopez-Lezcano
<nando at ccrma.stanford.edu> wrote:
> On Fri, 2009-03-27 at 16:40 -0400, Paul Davis wrote:
>> Linux Packagers: please do not call such
>> packages "Ardour". They should always be named in a way to make it
>> clear that they contain VST support - Ardour with VST support is not
>> actually a Linux program at all (its a small Windows executable that
>> is linked against some Linux libraries, run by a shell script that
>> invokes Wine). It is critical that users have the choice to install 1
>> or the other (or both, if possible). To repeat, Ardour with VST
>> support should not be packaged as "Ardour". I suggest "ArdourVST" (or
>> ardourvst, for the case-insensitive).
>
> Will probably be ardour-vst in Planet CCRMA...
>
> I imagine it would be able to use all the other auxiliary files from the
> main package, right? So the ardour-vst package would only have an
> executable binary (/usr/bin/ardour-vst) and would require the main
> package.

No unfortunately it doesn't really work like that. In fact, I've given
very little thought on how to package this, because until very
recently, it wasn't legally possible.

ardour-vst comprises:

    * a small shell script
    * a win32 executable
    * libardourgtk (the normal GTK GUI, build as a shared library)
    * libardour compiled with VST_SUPPORT=1
    * the other libraries
    * config files etc.

the last two items are shareable; the first 4 are ardour-vst specific.

i'd love to hear suggestions for schemes about to make packaging this
reasonably painless.