On Tue, 2007-12-18 at 16:56 +0200, Nedko Arnaudov wrote: > Krzysztof Foltman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Nedko Arnaudov wrote: > > > >> I'd like to hear what other ppl think about this. It works for me both > >> ways. If most ppl like to have two modes merged in one executable just > >> to see jackd is running not jackdbus, so be it, I'll merge those changes > >> into dbus patch. > > > > I'm definitely in favour of the merge. The previous solution (old jackd, > > new jackdbus) was definitely confusing to me. While I understand the > > distinction now, it wasn't obvious at first. > > So having jackd behave in orthagonal way is not confusing? Like, jackd > process is running, why my apps cannot connect?!?!?
? If apps can't connect to a running jackd, then that is a bug with the d-bus stuff regardless of what the executable is called. -DR- _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
