[CinCV TNG] Sound track DNxHD invisible under cinelerra-cv.
feranick at yahoo.com
Fri Sep 22 04:30:07 CEST 2017
No, this is not the way packaging works. More details below in my
response to Einar. In a nutshell: a repository exists with a purpose.
Within it only one version can exist. I have three repository (seel
below), and frankly they all have well defined purpose. 1. Stable (as
of 2.1.5). 2. Current git. 3. Experimental.
As far as packages are concerned, the infrastructure is very flexible. I
have three Ubuntu "branches": 1. stable (as in 2.1.5), 2: current git
(head) and 3: experimental builds. One way to go about is to have: 1 as
it currently is, 2: with the most stable in head (before the disruption)
3. with the disruptive changes. I still think 1. should be updated with
a maintenance release sooner rather than later (2.1.6?) with the most
current stable head before disruption. It would be a nice fall back, and
I don't see any reason to keep the stable (1) with the old tag 2.1.5.
What I would not recommend is to create parallel builds within the same
branch. Lots of reasons, but primarily the platform would not allow it.
People don't download versions of cinelerra for Ubuntu, they are pushed
as software updates by the system. So the users select since the very
beginning the type of updates s/he needs: stable (1), edgy (2),
experimental (3). Think debian, in essence. Given this, having the most
stable in 1 would probably be the most sensible solution, a reasonably
stable head in 2 (but still with testing), and experimental in 3.
On 9/21/17 2:47 PM, igor_ubuntu wrote:
> 2017-09-21 18:57 GMT+03:00 Einar Rünkaru <einarrunkaru at gmail.com
> <mailto:einarrunkaru at gmail.com>>:
> On 09/20/2017 06:51 PM, Nicola Ferralis wrote:/
> /Hello Einar,
> / /
> Question: is the plan to release the most stable hear as the
> new stable before disruption takes place? As a package
> maintainer (and ultimately the user as well), I would
> personally prefer that so that a stable package is available
> for people in needs of, well, stability, while the development
> branch would still be available. The opposite (continuing with
> the disruptive development without the release of stable,
> would leave users searching from stability to use the current
> stable which does not benefit from a lot of the recent
> / /
> /Preliminary thoughts.
> My idea is that you stop genarating new pakages before the
> distruptive changes begin./
> Yes. The current ppa
> <https://launchpad.net/%7Ecinelerra-ppa/+archive/ubuntu/ppa> should
> clone/maintain pkgs with tag 'current_stabile' from current git with
> tag 'current_stabile' and stop generating new pakages before the
> distruptive changes begin. Users of this ppa should wait.
> Packages with potentially distruptive changes from git_top should be
> redirected to a new PPA. Something like 'current_edge'_ppa
> Users who want to be at the forefront will install the program from
> this new 'current_edge'_ppa .
> After testing the changes, the packages in current git
> ('current_stabile') can be consistently updated with changes from
> After completing porting/testing for new changes and the full
> transfer of changes from 'current_edge'_ppa to 'current_stabile', the
> 'current_edge'_ppa can be removed.
> But I doubt that one will test the packages from
> 'current_edge'_ppa.This is reality.
> Cinelerra mailing list
> Cinelerra at lists.cinelerra-cv.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Cinelerra