[Ardour-Users] Ardour 2.8 released

[Fernando Lopez-Lezcano]

On Sat, 2009-03-28 at 14:39 -0400, Paul Davis wrote:
> 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. 

Oh well, that explains why my initial test build is failing...

> 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.

My suggestion (from the packager point of view) would be to make it
possible to do two successive builds of ardour on the same source tree,
one with vst enabled and one without it (with maybe a scons clean in
between?). Files generated should not conflict in naming. A scons
install after that should install both versions in the same DESTDIR. 

That means that libardourgtk and libardour would have to have vst naming
added to them (ie: anything potentially shared between installs that
needs to be kept in the separate packages should have non-conflicting
names or should be installed in non-conflicting directories). 

It would then be possible to segregate the files into (at least) two
ways of packaging them:

a) ardour-common, ardour (requires ardour-common) and ardour-vst
(requires ardour-common)

b) ardour (includes all the common stuff) and ardour-vst (only the vst
specific parts, requires ardour)

[b)] implies you always have plain ardour if you install ardour-vst,
probably a good thing, at least at this point.  

-- Fernando