Arch Linux

stonedz

Member

From: Firenze, Italy

Registered: 2006-08-29

Posts: 30

Website

Problems with ardour 2.0beta12-1

Hello,

I've updated ardour to the latest version, but I've got a big problem with it: I cannot load any of my previous sessions. When I try loading a session, I get a message of this kind:

ardour: [ERROR]: SndFileSource: cannot open file "/home/media/musica_pa/c'est bon aujourd'hui/interchange/c_est bon aujourd_hui/audiofiles/voce-13.wav" for read+write (File opened for read. Format not recognised.)
ardour: [ERROR]: voce:0 nuovo file di registrazione non è stato avviato correttamente
ardour: [ERROR]: SndFileSource: cannot open file "/home/media/musica_pa/c'est bon aujourd'hui/interchange/c_est bon aujourd_hui/audiofiles/chitarra-17.wav" for read+write (File opened for read. Format not recognised.)
ardour: [ERROR]: chitarra:0 nuovo file di registrazione non è stato avviato correttamente
Loading history from '/home/media/musica_pa/c'est bon aujourd'hui/c'est bon aujourd'hui.history'.

Then, if I try to play my tracks , ardour chrashes with :

terminate called after throwing an instance of 'std::bad_alloc'
  what():  St9bad_alloc
Abortito

Can somebody please help me?

I really appreciate your work,
Paolo

---

"Software is like sex, it's better when it's free." L.T.

sm4tik

Member

From: Finland, Jyväskylä

Registered: 2006-11-05

Posts: 248

Website

Re: Problems with ardour 2.0beta12-1

Good to hear it isn't just me.. I have to a make radio play for tomorrow and this isn't helping much Oh well, maybe I'll manage with my cassette 4-tracker
My guess is that the arch build is somehow messed up?

EDIT 30/3/07

http://bugs.archlinux.org/task/6677
That one kind of gives a bit of a light, but still it would be great to have a working build from official repos.

Last edited by sm4tik (2007-03-30 04:05:31)

btartsa

Member

Registered: 2004-07-26

Posts: 222

Re: Problems with ardour 2.0beta12-1

I rolled back to the previous version and it works...look in /var/cache/pacman/pkg and do pacman -U on the old version. If you have it.

stonedz

Member

From: Firenze, Italy

Registered: 2006-08-29

Posts: 30

Website

Re: Problems with ardour 2.0beta12-1

I rolled back to the previous version and it works...look in /var/cache/pacman/pkg and do pacman -U on the old version. If you have it.

I did the same, but I would like to hear something from the package maintainer.

---

"Software is like sex, it's better when it's free." L.T.

neri

Forum Fellow

From: Victoria, Canada

Registered: 2003-05-04

Posts: 553

Re: Problems with ardour 2.0beta12-1

Ardour seems to have a hard build dependency on the previous flac version, which we don't have in the repos anymore. So with some help from Nicolai Lissner(blackpenguin) I was able do deliver a version that brings it's own version of flac(the former version). But I can't do much more unless Ardour builds against the newer flac version.

stonedz

Member

From: Firenze, Italy

Registered: 2006-08-29

Posts: 30

Website

Re: Problems with ardour 2.0beta12-1

neri, thank you for this clear explanation.

---

"Software is like sex, it's better when it's free." L.T.

sm4tik

Member

From: Finland, Jyväskylä

Registered: 2006-11-05

Posts: 248

Website

Re: Problems with ardour 2.0beta12-1

http://bugs.archlinux.org/task/6677

Some new comments there saying everything's ok. So if someone could tell what repo is having the working build? At least I'm not getting better results pacmaning from repo to repo...

Neri:

Do you have a build somewhere or should we just build it using the PKGBUILD from the link above? Is there a possibility of making an official build which contains the flac.so.7?

And another one for all of you.. If the beta12 doesn't work as it is for the moment, then WTF is it doing in official repos?? This is the first time I run into a thing like this and also the first time it WAS important. Kind of pisses me off installing a program just to see it doesn't work. I think this is NOT what arch is all about??
Ok, I know it's only one in a kind, but it's an example the arch community doesn't need! This is why I think debian does a good job with their thing. (Not that I'm going to swap distros in a minute ) But makes me wonder if this kind of a build should be in the extras in the first place?? Shouldn't it first go to the "testing" before letting it thru to the official extras?

Last edited by sm4tik (2007-04-07 21:11:59)