“Can’t locate .size file for x86 bundle”. It (probably) means you need to install the 32-bit version, not the 64. How do I know this? I quickly found it on the Net – after struggling with, and giving up on, the actual Ardour bug-tracker and discussion forums (no way to search for that error message, within existing bug reports or posts??? Are you kiddin me??? If there is a way to search, it’s much too well hidden (or too obvious!) and I failed to find it).
This problem snagged me, and many others I’m sure, because I did not even realize that this particular laptop is running 32-bit Linux, or that anything does anymore. “uname -a” is not very illuminating unless you already know what to look for, there is nothing that says “32 bits”, and the reference to “SMP” makes it seem like “surely this must be 64-bit, right?”.
A secondary issue is that once you realize you’ve downloaded the wrong file, if you’re like me you’ll probably try to use the same download link a second time: and get a second copy of the 64-bit version for your trouble, since the place where it asks is further back in the procedure. So is this putting you in danger of using up your “three strikes”? It’s not clear, it seems like the 32-bit download link initiates a new set of “three strikes”. Anyway, just some of the concerns of someone trying to get through this for the first time, yes initially for free, but I’ll happily pay if this thing proves to be useful (and installable!).
So, I would suggest (at the very least) placing some reference to this apparently very-common and befuddling error message, in the initial README file. And perhaps, the actual error message text itself could be expanded. In fact, I offer to do this myself, if nobody else picks it up, but I expect it will take a while for me to get logged in and such that I can contribute patches.
Thanks to the developers for this effort, I am quite appreciative despite the problems.
The bundles work that way because the original design was to include both 32 bit and 64 bit packages and pick the right one for the user. This more than doubles the size of the download for no particularly good reason. We tend to assume that our users know which bit size they are running at, but then we make quite a few assumptions that turn out to be unwarranted.
As for website search, there’s a search box at the upper right of every page on community.ardour.org unless your browser is less than 1024 pixels wide. We regret not having the manpower to make the website fully mobile-friendly, but given our status as a desktop application and the size of the bug tracker database and the TO-DO list(s), it isn’t high priority for us.
I understand this may be a frustrating issue, but this tends to come from being used to a windows or mac background where everything is done for you but usually at a cost.
ardour can be had for very little or even free if you dont mind compiling from source (or through provided packages in various distors though the ardour binaries are better)
once you get to know linux well these little niggles are easy to figure out.
If you want something that should work out the box with tons of features and a no hassle easy install. buy protools, logic, cubase reaper etc.
how much are those software packages? i dont know but not cheap.
ardour is fantastic and is jjust as powerfull maybe moreso.
google is your friend
If you want to find what architexture your running
that will show you x86 or x86_64
I didnt know that and just searched it found asnwer within a few seconds
free-software/caveat-emptor: yes, I dig it. I am a long-time Linux user and programmer, and Ardour is definitely the type of software I am looking for, not the easy-out-of-the-box Windows/Mac experience. Nonetheless, we of the Linux world could certainly do better in terms of documentation and error messages. Sure, nobody has a lot of time, but how long would it take to add a little text to the error message, which I assume is in a script somewhere?, saying “.size bundle not found for x86 – this is often caused by trying to run the 64-bit version on 32-bit Linux”, or something to that effect. (Notice that, as I said, “uname” does not say anything explicit about “32 bits”. You have to know (or remember) that “x86” means, effectively, “x86_32”. Whereas if you are expecting to see 64-bits, that is pretty well confirmed by “x86_64”.)
Anyway, not trying to be a whiner here; as I said, I will offer to make some of these changes myself, after I figure out how, if there is not an actual objection to it, just nobody else with the “time” (i.e., motivation).
As for the 1024-pixel issue with the search display, well, I’m not sure how many pixels across this Windows machine is running on its second display, but it’s definitely more than 1024. I.e., not a mobile device. Again, I offer both (a) that this kind of usability issue should be seen as a priority, and (b) if I’m the only one who does see it that way, then I’ll willingly do the work to straighten out such things, as I develop the ability.
How long would it take?
Have you looked at http://tracker.ardour.org/ ? Every single item there is “just something to do”. Many of them wouldn’t take long. (Almost) nobody is doing them. Just looking at the tracker takes longer than modifying the install script, but that doesn’t mean there is time for either.