[aur-general] ardour-lv2

[Ng Oon-Ee]

On Mon, 2010-08-23 at 14:03 +0200, Philipp Überbacher wrote:
> Excerpts from Ty John (sand_man)'s message of 2010-08-23 13:53:51 +0200:
> > On Mon, 2010-08-23 at 19:30 +0800, Ray Rashif wrote:
> > > On 23 August 2010 19:25, Ty John (sand_man) <ty-ml at eye-of-odin.com> wrote:
> > > > On Mon, 2010-08-23 at 12:24 +0200, Philipp Überbacher wrote:
> > > >> Excerpts from Ty John (sand_man)'s message of 2010-08-23 12:13:11 +0200:
> > > >> > I noticed this package is currently unmaintained.
> > > >> > Can I adopt this?
> > > >>
> > > >> Please do so, if you think it's still needed.
> > > >> I orphaned it because I lost interest in the program, but afaik in the
> > > >> meantime there's hardly a difference between this package and the one in
> > > >> [extra].
> > > >
> > > > I can't believe I didn't see the 'adopt' button.
> > > >
> > > > Yeah I wasn't sure if it's the same or not. Does the one in extra
> > > > support lv2 plugins? It doesn't seem to be specifically compiled in the
> > > > same way.
> > > > I'll keep it updated for now.
> > > 
> > > Yes, extra/ardour is compiled with LV2 support. The only difference
> > > between the two different binaries would be whatever change is
> > > influenced by having FFT_ANALYSIS.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > --
> > > GPG/PGP ID: B42DDCAD
> > > 
> > 
> > I see.
> > FFT is an audio visualisation tool. I guess this package probably
> > shouldn't really be called -lv2 then.
> 
> When I created it, the [extra] package wasn't built with lv2 support
> (slv2 wasn't in [extra] either). It appeared sensible at the time,
> because lv2 support was the major difference.

\me goes to uninstall ardour-lv2 and update from extra =).

Thanks, you're right, the lv2 support was the big difference. I
recommend ardour-lv2 can be removed, since its not required anymore with
[extra] having lv2 support.