________________________________ From: Kaj Ailomaa <zeque...@mousike.me> To: pd-dev@iem.at Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2013 4:29 AM Subject: Re: [PD-dev] jack dbus? On Wed, May 29, 2013, at 09:17 AM, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote: >> >> i dimly remember some discussion (on LAD, iirc) why having jack with >> d-bus enabled by default was a bad idea. >> maybe things have improved since then. >> >> >> > >> >> one of the problems of Pd i see is, that all the audio backends >> >> are linked into the main binary. so if you have a binary with >> >> jack/dbus support, you *must* install jack/dbus or you will not >> >> be able to use Pd at all (even if you don't care for audio at >> >> all). >> > >I think the situation with jack is somewhat problematic, since there are >now three variants of jack, where jack1 and jack2 both can be run as >jackd - but jack1 and jack2 do not support the same stuff, and where >jackdbus, while a form of jack2 is not operated the way jackd is. >Perhaps it is a sign of an organizational problem within the jack >community? I would really make things easier if there was only one jack. >From pd point of view, I suppose one could argue there is only two forms >of jack: jackd and jackdbus - would that be correct? >Where jackd could be either jack1 or jack2. It makes no difference wrt development of Pd audio/midi backend for JACK because the same backend can connect to JACK no matter which of the above implementations is being used. Thanks for the rest of what you wrote-- I will play with jackdbus a bit here on Wheezy when I get a chance. -Jonathan
_______________________________________________ Pd-dev mailing list Pd-dev@iem.at http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev
