| Re: [proaudio] running concurrent versions of ardour (2.x and 3.x) |
[ Thread Index |
Date Index
| More lists.tuxfamily.org/proaudio Archives
]
- To: proaudio@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: [proaudio] running concurrent versions of ardour (2.x and 3.x)
- From: "Mark Knecht" <markknecht@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2008 09:49:27 -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=d8pML3lQ0w+44hcWrVg1soJmqwyffu+Hi0ek9VaTAAk=; b=AKJkRHvrH61urhi2LdkAwxqEuFSEfSCzWH46Zp6Rl6wl2/eFoXL/7RlUj8nBuA9jw2 zIDtSS/1r1Mfe6YaT2B8Zig38qZeXT5C0mRGYbhEqvJ6kxhNkZqtlh4iJC7Tt6UTq6dv rNAU1jCh4zKZt8I9efuKsCv0/Gm4+jJKavnHM=
- 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=EkqDQL2ZY7HBkunx5ob6Pgavs/pwbHwhREgTDhKHORjy1gemPfU7ugD1ieECwhPNpb k6Dc44Vv009d6hIB1JX7NJfNnj7ZI8kxIscf/XKJSFC6sfvsDkMhI2Sdgum5tcYS5BkM cXsNFBZaFi1Kr6zsCFuAXGrWqxmmrTheu3Bg4=
On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 9:42 AM, Thomas Kuther <gimpel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Fr, 12.12.08 07:44 "sonofzev@xxxxxxxxxxxx" <sonofzev@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi All
>>
>> With the announcement of the feature freezing of ardour 2.x, I would
>> like to assist with the ardour project testing of the MIDI code, but
>> retain a 2.x version installed on the system to use for production
>> purposes. Is anybody able to explain how to do this with the current
>> ebuilds?
>>
>
> Not at all, sorry. While almost anything is installed in a way that it
> slots nicely, we have colliding locale files, like
>
> --- [!time] /usr/share/locale/sv_SE/LC_MESSAGES/gtk2_ardour.mo
>
> All the rest (binary, lib, config) would be fine.
> If you want, you can ask upstream to fix this.
>
> Cheers.
>
Which upstream? Gentoo? Ardour?
I would think that maybe the Ardour guys could leave out the locales
during development. I don't want to exclude anyone from helping with
development/debug though.
If it's *only* locales maybe we could add a build flag to install or
not install them for 3.0 development work?
Or is it just better to not put it in portage at all, build it by hand
and install it locally instead of globally?
- Mark