| Re: [proaudio] Which Ardour for Ardour2? |
[ Thread Index |
Date Index
| More lists.tuxfamily.org/proaudio Archives
]
- To: proaudio@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: [proaudio] Which Ardour for Ardour2?
- From: "Mark Knecht" <markknecht@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2008 07:11:52 -0800
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; bh=yt9wW7EJLTorcx29lsYZ2hSlycUQNluu8FoCjsPQHCo=; b=Og4Qi6hJBlDQTa/Z/ihLqF1X7OFFqeu+lND81Kv7VtGXuukn83SsdSL9vjw0OpUEEagn83Lyxvl7SB5pKLVWh0kTaY9eToEnwD7w053kgNCrI8KiqmyJEGSmYQc8PB2X8ADQftIrbuj/j4Q1lTz6cs/e7xflodDCR6P4yGL4a+8=
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=aKZ6I4VuEbUx2pXcjG/9A8I7OzzDNoN22CFVFcbgaNd6GJliNOwXBvwKDzX4h2TlayUf00lVtsxhj/2VI93lGAm22q9ZuVZKm/Mvj+8rdmk1LQ8nlZQM6W3iYyV3XiZwmf1JaHtUxIeWPItJaKlRkqCKPELuEyEg6bkn19wKVkY=
On Feb 7, 2008 6:59 AM, Thomas Kuther <gimpel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Do, 07.02.08 15:49 Harald Gutmann <harald.gutmann@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > Am Donnerstag, 7. Februar 2008 15:44:14 schrieb Thomas Kuther:
> > > On Do, 07.02.08 06:32 "Mark Knecht" <markknecht@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > I'm sorry, but which Ardour is the latest version?
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Mark
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > lightning ~ # eix ardour
> > > > * media-sound/ardour
> > > > Available versions: (~)0.99.2!m (~)0.99.3!m (~)2.0.3
> > > > (~)2.0.5 (~)2.0.5[1] (**)2.0.99992[1] [M](~)2.1 [M](~)2.1[1]
> > > > (**)2.1.9999[1] (~)2.2 (~)2.2[1] (**)99992[1] {altivec debug fftw
> > > > nls sse sys-libs vst}
> > > > Homepage: http://ardour.org/
> > > > Description: multi-track hard disk recording software
> > > >
> > > > [1] "proaudio" /usr/portage/local/layman/pro-audio
> > > > lightning ~ #
> > >
> > > 2.2 <- latest release
> > > 2.0.99992 / 2.1.9999 <- SVN 2.0 ongoing (they are identical)
> > > 99992 <- SVN trunk
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Tom
> > >
> > > PS: maybe we should rename 2.0.99992/2.1.9999 to 2.9999 to avoid
> > > some unmasking issues? e.g. 2.2 is "newer" than 2.1.9999
> >
> > why not name it 2.2.9999 or in a few days then 2.3.9999.
> > 2.3 is short before official release.
> >
> >
> > regards, harald
> >
> >
> I guess fixes for 2.3 also go into the 2.0-ongoing SVN branch, so we
> would have to bump it all the time, 2.9999 does it once and forever.
>
> But looking at their SVN, trunk is gone, and there is a 3.0 branch now
> o.O
>
Is SVN-2.0 ongoing different than SVN-99992 which is what I'm
currently picking up by default?
lightning ~ # emerge -pv ardour
These are the packages that would be merged, in order:
Calculating dependencies... done!
[ebuild N ] media-sound/ardour-99992 USE="nls (-altivec) -debug
(-sse) -sys-libs" 0 kB [1]
Total: 1 package (1 new), Size of downloads: 0 kB
Portage tree and overlays:
[0] /usr/portage
[1] /usr/portage/local/layman/pro-audio
lightning ~ #
It seems that I have many options but that portage isn't always
choosing the most recent:
lightning ~ # emerge -pv =media-sound/ardour-2.2
These are the packages that would be merged, in order:
Calculating dependencies... done!
[ebuild N ] media-sound/ardour-2.2 USE="nls (-altivec) -debug
-fftw (-sse) -sys-libs -vst" 4,197 kB [1]
Total: 1 package (1 new), Size of downloads: 4,197 kB
Portage tree and overlays:
[0] /usr/portage
[1] /usr/portage/local/layman/pro-audio
lightning ~ # emerge -pv =media-sound/ardour-99992
These are the packages that would be merged, in order:
Calculating dependencies... done!
[ebuild N ] media-sound/ardour-99992 USE="nls (-altivec) -debug
(-sse) -sys-libs" 0 kB [1]
Total: 1 package (1 new), Size of downloads: 0 kB
Portage tree and overlays:
[0] /usr/portage
[1] /usr/portage/local/layman/pro-audio
lightning ~ #