On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 9:34 PM, Lennart Poettering<mz...@0pointer.de> wrote: > On Mon, 15.06.09 10:16, Fernando Lopez-Lezcano (na...@ccrma.stanford.edu) > wrote: > >> > Distributions will certainly enable the D-Bus code in JACK if they >> > ship it. So, I have no problem with depending on a dbus'ified jack for >> > this logic to work. >> >> >From a packagers' (for Fedora/Planet CCRMA) point of view the future >> dbus-capable jack should be able to be used without dbus support as well >> as with it _without_ having to recompile it (that is without having to >> repackage it differently). For an example of non-dbus usage, I may want >> to start jack on a remote host where there is no desktop session at the >> moment and thus dbus is not usable. > > No. That use case does not make any sense. The D-Bus session bus is > autospawned if necessary these days. > > I personally see no value in dbus-less builds. That's just pointless > conservatism, mostly based on unfounded anti D-Bus FUD. But then > again, I am not really a jack developer, so what I think is mostly > irrelevant. > > Lennart > > -- > Lennart Poettering Red Hat, Inc. > lennart [at] poettering [dot] net > http://0pointer.net/lennart/ GnuPG 0x1A015CC4 > _______________________________________________ > Linux-audio-dev mailing list > Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org > http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev >
No Lennart, it makes complete sense. It's about choice, whatever the reasons might be. And i can see the use case for, as an example, a headless rig running a big sampler, i.e., a raw warrior box. You may not see the need for this, but that doesn't mean that particular choice isn't just as valid as your own view. Alex. -- www.openoctave.org, midi-subscr...@openoctave.org development-subscr...@openoctave.org _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
