On Thu, Jan 07, 2010 at 10:27:12AM +0100, rosea grammostola wrote:
> I'm not sure you saw my message on LAD, so here it is again:
>> But I suggest you to enable both --classic and --dbus for Debian,
Yep, I saw it and acted accordingly:
It's working, I've tested it, though I find it a little bit useless at
the moment. Besides ladish, who needs it? Anyway, I don't think it's
causing any harm to have it, so we can keep it enabled.
> Maybe it's also good to package Ladish.
You must be joking. Ladish is in early development, has a preview-0.2
version out and the majority of jackified apps don't support it. I've
been talking to Nedko (the one and only ladish developer) yesterday, and
he consideres it experimental. Not in the Debian sense of experimental,
more as in pre-alpha.
It also requires a patched jackd2, these patches are in nedko's private
jackd2 repository. So until they got applied to jackd2, there's neither
no use in jackdbus nor in ladish based on it.
It's a complete mess: there's jackd1 managed by Paul Davis. It's stable,
he accepts and applies patches. This works. Then, there is jackd2. The
author rarely accepts patches and doesn't forward-port patches from
jackd1. And there is jackdbus. Furthermore, there's nedko's patched
jackd2. I told them yesterday that they have to sort things out
internally. They cannot expect distros to pull from different side
branches, just because they don't agree on a single version.
I'm fine with jackd1+jackd2, I'd also accept jackd1+jackd2+jackdbus,
since jackd2 and jackdbus are from the same source, but I'm not going to
add the 3.5th version of jackd2 just to run ladish when I have to check
out a developer's git repository to make it work.
Same holds true for ladish. Once they have a decent release, we could
start thinking about packaging it. Until then, it's pure developer's
land, and people interested in it should compile it on their own.
mail: a...@thur.de http://adi.thur.de PGP/GPG: key via keyserver
pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list