FS#38329 - [ardour] version is incorrect
Attached to Project:
Arch Linux
Opened by Uli (Army) - Tuesday, 31 December 2013, 09:48 GMT
Last edited by Ray Rashif (schivmeister) - Tuesday, 25 February 2014, 19:43 GMT
Opened by Uli (Army) - Tuesday, 31 December 2013, 09:48 GMT
Last edited by Ray Rashif (schivmeister) - Tuesday, 25 February 2014, 19:43 GMT
|
Details
Description:
After the recent update [2013-12-28 22:51] [PACMAN] upgraded ardour (3.5.74-1 -> 3.5.143-1) ardour always shows on startup, that the new version 3.5.143 is released. Me wondering, why this message pops up, I was looking up its real version. $ ardour3 -v bnd txt domain [gtk2_ardour3] to /usr/share/locale Ardour3.5.142 (built using 3.5-142-g9f17579 and GCC version 4.8.2 20131219 (prerelease)) So this package isn't up to date! |
This task depends upon
I would love the correct version easily accessible as well, there are some nice fixes there.
I just tried to build ardour from the github mirror, because it provides a tagged snapshot of the current release. But the build process failed with an error message, because a file was missing...
$ pacman -Qi ardour | grep Version
Version : 3.5.308-1
$ ardour3 -v
bnd txt domain [gtk2_ardour3] to /usr/share/locale
Ardour3.5.284 (built using 3.5-284-g8b71e40 and GCC version 4.8.2 20131219 (prerelease))
And launching ardour it tells me "Version 3.5.308 has been released. Update at http://ardour.org/download"
So again the versions don't match.
Maybe it's better to build the package from git?
In particular, users will lose direct upstream support by using a git-based build. [1] There are significant differences between a release tarball and a git tagged checkout; there is no version information in the latter. See the list of file differences. [2]
So, what you get is a little different than what upstream wants its end-users to get. However, if we define ourselves as anything but end-users, then I see absolutely no problem using a git checkout.
[1] http://community.ardour.org/s/source
[2] http://bpaste.net/show/182571/
Anyway, it was decided that we could shift to a git-tagged package if and when trouble arises (mostly from upstream being angry about storing their source). This just became the first trouble.
The next trouble would probably make me announce the shift and possible exclusion of users from upstream support. Thanks for your input, closing.