[Ardour-Users] [LAU] Ardour3

[fred]

Of course I may not end such a discussion !

What have read here is Paul's feeling : "people who try to use the Arch 
thing
as the new Ardour, they will just think it's not a good stuff."

This feeling is really understandable, and I like to wish some really
good holydays to Paul, his wife and 2 lil' girls.

Sorry for bad english (or misunderstood), and relax before next 
month/year/Ardour !!
Fred





  Le 21/12/2010 01:34, Ray Rashif a écrit :
> On 21 December 2010 02:26, Paul Davis<paul at linuxaudiosystems.com>  wrote:
>    
>> i'm angry because i've said all the way through ardour3 development
>> that packaging of any kind doesn't make any sense.
>>      
> IIRC we've always been telling each other not to upload any
> buildscript of ardour3 to AUR, but share them via other means, eg.
> IRC. It was an understanding all archlinux/ardour3 users had at that
> time and for as long as I know (until now..or more precisely February
> which I wasn't aware of) there was no such package in the AUR.
>
> However, I believe that's flawed and more importantly, stupid. What we
> end up with in the end is some script that looks almost the same and
> does exactly the same thing, duplicated on almost every system that
> matters to ardour3 development. Even one of your most useful/prominent
> ardour/jack users (he was featured in an article not too long ago)
> uses buildscripts because:
>
> 1) They take care of dependencies
> 2) They automate svn routines
> 3) They automate build routines
>
> And all that in a nice, unaltered way. You surely don't want to bother
> your useful users with those headaches, because surely, you want them
> to _use_ ardour3 and provide valuable feedback. Argueing that, someone
> who doesn't want to go through those headaches is not fit enough to
> contribute to ardour3 development, is absurd at best. Which brings us
> to:
>
>    
>> i'm upset that someone would give users a 2nd-rate experience by
>> making them think that they had received an "important" version of
>> ardour3 rather than just another svn commit that will be out of date
>> in a few hours.
>>      
> Our users are competent enough to understand the difference there -
> subconsciously. In fact, I believe that kind of thinking can only be
> attributed to new or casual users of FLOSS. Anyone who is capable of
> setting up an Arch Linux system is capable of using Subversion. Look
> at it this way:
>
> You would've received this query even if the user had resorted to
> manual methods of installation.
>
> A PKGBUILD is no different from a svn/wget script that prepares the
> local system, pulls upstream sources and does a build and an install
> run. Have a look:
> http://aur.archlinux.org/packages/ardour3-svn/ardour3-svn/PKGBUILD
>
> Surely, sharing that kind of script openly would not be against any
> kind of rule or ethic, nor would it be hampering ardour3 development
> any more than random support requests from uninformed users,
> regardless of platform. So just a warning pre/post-install would be
> good enough to prevent unwarranted queries like this. Which brings us
> to:
>
> On 21 December 2010 03:44, Paul Davis<paul at linuxaudiosystems.com>  wrote:
>    
>> I'm comfortable with that note. I just hope that people actually read it.
>>      
> As long as it requests attention, like a prompt for a yes or no, it
> will be read in most cases. Else, it's no different from not reading
> about ardour3 from upstream sources. While navigating to the following
> page:
>
> http://ardour.org/download_full
>
> I was able to get the SVN command for 3.0 without bothering myself
> with the details. If, after installing (let's assume someone helped me
> with the dependencies on Fedora), I were to face a crash, there would
> be nothing preventing me from asking a question on the list, forums or
> IRC.
>
> You can rest assured that Arch Linux users don't bother about
> "distributions". Software is only "packaged" because it's a necessary
> step to maintain a record and system sanity. You can't really refer to
> our packaging and compare it to, say, Fedora's packaging. We "package"
> almost everything, even our own custom, personal scripts.
>
>
> --
> GPG/PGP ID: B42DDCAD
> _______________________________________________
> Linux-audio-user mailing list
> Linux-audio-user at lists.linuxaudio.org
> http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
>
>