Bug 246915 - [NEW PORT] audio/ardour6: Multichannel digital audio workstation (6.x)
Summary: [NEW PORT] audio/ardour6: Multichannel digital audio workstation (6.x)
Status: Open
Alias: None
Product: Ports & Packages
Classification: Unclassified
Component: Individual Port(s) (show other bugs)
Version: Latest
Hardware: Any Any
: --- Affects Only Me
Assignee: freebsd-ports-bugs (Nobody)
URL:
Keywords: feature, needs-qa
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2020-06-01 18:34 UTC by Michael Beer
Modified: 2020-07-03 12:46 UTC (History)
3 users (show)

See Also:


Attachments
svn diff of port files (48.99 KB, patch)
2020-06-01 18:34 UTC, Michael Beer
no flags Details | Diff

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Michael Beer 2020-06-01 18:34:09 UTC
Created attachment 215139 [details]
svn diff of port files

This is the port of the long awaited new major release of ardour.
The port files are basically the same as for ardour5.
We may keep ardour5 for a while in the ports tree until ardour6 is proven to be stable enough.
Comment 1 Li-Wen Hsu freebsd_committer 2020-07-01 08:07:24 UTC
(In reply to Michael Beer from comment #0)
Do you think maybe we can update the audio/ardour port which is 2.x?
Comment 2 Alexey Dokuchaev freebsd_committer 2020-07-01 08:15:00 UTC
(In reply to Li-Wen Hsu from comment #1)
I was planning to move current 2.x port to audio/ardour2 first, then updating audio/ardour to 3.x, moving that to audio/ardour3, then to the latest (current) version.  Too bad 5.x was introduced in between which jeopardised things a bit, but not too much. :-)
Comment 3 Li-Wen Hsu freebsd_committer 2020-07-01 08:18:30 UTC
(In reply to Alexey Dokuchaev from comment #2)
Isn't the latest version 6.0.0?
Comment 4 Alexey Dokuchaev freebsd_committer 2020-07-01 08:20:05 UTC
(In reply to Li-Wen Hsu from comment #3)
> Isn't the latest version 6.0.0?
Yes it is, why?
Comment 5 Li-Wen Hsu freebsd_committer 2020-07-01 09:13:56 UTC
(In reply to Alexey Dokuchaev from comment #4)
You're talking about 2.x and 3.x so I'm confused.

Do we still need 2.x and 3.x? If not, let's update audio/ardour to 6.x with this patch.
Comment 6 Michael Beer 2020-07-01 13:40:27 UTC
I already sent a diff some time (years! can't remember) ago to rename 'ardour' to 'ardour2' and to always track the latest Ardour version in 'ardour'.
I think, the maintainer of 'ardour' wanted to take care about it but unfortunately this didn't happen until now.
He wants to keep ardour2 in ports mainly because it is a lightweight alternative (good enough for many tasks) to the current version, as far as I understand.
I think, 'ardour3' never made it into the ports.
Comment 7 Michael Beer 2020-07-01 13:43:40 UTC
Ah, I've just seen that you, Alexey, are the maintainer of ardour ;-)
Comment 8 Alexey Dokuchaev freebsd_committer 2020-07-01 13:48:51 UTC
(In reply to Michael Beer from comment #6)
> ... keep ardour2 in ports mainly because it is a lightweight alternative 
Actually, while I definitely prefer lighter (less bloated) software, the main reason was that newer versions cannot open some (or most of?) projects created with Ardour 2.x, IIRC.
Comment 9 daniel.engberg.lists 2020-07-03 07:06:52 UTC
A few questions,

I'm confused by your comment about disfile, are you trying to say that they don't carry older versions? If that's the case why not use https://github.com/Ardour/ardour and pull of from there instead?
https://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/porters-handbook/book.html#makefile-master_sites-github-description

Main site and GitHub lists license as GPLv2 not GPLv2+?

Why is SSE enforced on i386 and amd64?

Is it possible to add unit tests (make test) to the port?

Great work!
Comment 10 Michael Beer 2020-07-03 12:00:46 UTC
(In reply to daniel.engberg.lists from comment #9)
The link the ardour project provides points always to the current version only.
The reason why you can't just take a release (tagged version) from github is more complicated. I hope, I explain it correctly: 
The C++ file 'revision.cc' is not checked in on the git server but is created
on the fly by the used build system (waf) with the help of git.
This works perfect if actually work on a cloned repository and build ardour. 
However this would also mean that you need to have the complete '.git' folder available. For a freebsd port this would mean to include the entire .git to the pkg-plist file, which is certainly not desired to have.
There is this 'release' mechanism in github which builds a tar ball. This however doesn't support this particular version feature.
Comment 11 Michael Beer 2020-07-03 12:46:36 UTC
(In reply to daniel.engberg.lists from comment #9)
-- Main site and GitHub lists license as GPLv2 not GPLv2+?
I don't think I added the '+' myself (in the ardour5 port).

-- Why is SSE enforced on i386 and amd64?
For amd64 it's probably enabled by default in the compiler anyway.
Performance wise Ardour is not suitable for i386 machines without SSE in my opinion. But newer machines running 32-bit OS benefit a lot by using SSE.
(I think SSE is available since PentiumII)

-- Is it possible to add unit tests (make test) to the port?
Personally I see no need.
But if you step in and provide a patch you are welcome of course.