Hi, On Sat, Nov 3, 2012 at 11:11 PM, PhilippeDidier <[email protected]>wrote:
> Jehan Pagès a écrit : > > Hi, > > > > I noticed we propose only the Jack2 package, but no Jack1. Yet Jack2 is > > simply another implementation in C++ of the Jack protocol, and not a > > newer version (as the official website also states clearly: > > http://trac.jackaudio.org/wiki/Q_differenc_jack1_jack2 ). > > > > Plus I had a very annoying bug with Ardour when using Jack2, and people > > on Ardour mailing list told me it was a known issue with Jack2 (both > > Ardour and Jack2 were installed from the Mageia 2 packages). I compiled > > Jack1, and it indeed fixed the issue. > > > > So I am thinking on proposing a spec for Jack1. > > > > But then I have questions: > > > > 1/ How should I name this package? The jack2 package is named "jackit" > > and I have no idea where you got that from (I guess this is a shorter > > name for "Jack Audio Connection Kit", but should we really change > > package names this way? > > It is not that long). The official alternative > > name of Jack2 is "jackdmp" (see README here: > > https://github.com/jackaudio/jack2 ). I saw nowhere else this "jackit" > > naming. > > > We inherit this from Mandrake : in the early years of Mandrake a jack > package already existed but it had nothing to do with JACK (Jack Audio > Connexion Kit) : it was a console frontend for cd rippers, still > provided in Mageia... > > When JACK was imported into Mandrake it had to be given an other name... > so jackit !!! > There was a tonic controversy on Mandrake forum about this in 2003 or > 2004 year. > Mandrake and then Mandriva and and then Mageia are the only > distributions calling JACK package "jackit" .... > > So I am questioning the naming of this existing package, and would like > > to propose some rename along with a new name for a Jack1 package. > > Maybe simply "jack1" and "jack2"? Or "jack" and "jackdmp"? > > > > 2/ How should the virtual dependency be named? > > The existing "jackit" spec provides a "jackit-devel" and a > "libjack-devel". > > > > I think that none of the names are really fit IMO. First jackit for the > > same reason as before (I don't see where this name comes from), also > > libjack (and the -devel suffix) because this kit is not *only* a library > > (there are also the jackd daemon, tools, etc.). > > > > I propose simply "jack" as virtual package name. > > > > How does this sound? > > Thanks. > > > > Jehan > Not simple because of this context ... > If you want to call JACK jack you need to remove first the existing jack > from the repo, and to modify the spec for every package requiring jackit > now, to make them require jack if it is the new package name for JACK . > > Post Scriptum : Reading this I don't know if my explanation is clear > enough ... > A key to understand what I wrote : > "jack" is the name of a package (whatever its content is) > "jackit" is the name of a package > "JACK" is the recursive acronym (Jack Audio Connexion Kit) of the > software you are talking about > > Ok I understood the deal. I would personally prefer even a longer package name like jack-audio-connection-kit. Mageia would gain from having clearer naming. Especially if we add the Jack1 alternative. Now if this is a big deal, and it generates a controversy again, it is not that a big deal. The question thus is: how do I call Jack1 package then? And can I say that this new package "Provides: jackit" so that it works as an alternative to Jack2 (for instance for Ardour)? Thanks. Jehan
