On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 01:23:03PM -0300, Felipe Sateler wrote:
On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 12:55, Adrian Knoth <a...@drcomp.erfurt.thur.de> wrote:On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 11:20:17AM -0300, Felipe Sateler wrote:
On the other hand, for casual use of jack, a more stable version would be preferred over a more featureful one.Unfortunately, this is only half of the story. For the occasional use of jack, jackd2 is easier to use, because it can suspend pulseaudio.In the jackd1 case, the user needs to shutdown pulseaudio or any other application blocking the soundcard. d.Ah, that is a good for jack2.
Yeah - it lowers the bar of using "pro" audio.One part of the "pro" is that it is too complex to get started for ordinary humans - like a school music teacher and her pupils. Would be terrific if they could get going more easily - even if "too old" for actual music professionals.
So I would go with jack1 for squeeze.I'm completely undecided. Whenever I write "Ok, let's stick to jackd1 and upgrade in squeeze-and-a-half if need be", I remember that at least Free, Jonas and me are using jackd2 for quite some time, so why not switch immediately... ;)Also, if my understanding is correct, jack2 is ABI compatible with jack1, so no library transition is needed.
That was my impression too. If so, why don't we ship *both*?Let's rename jackd → jackd1, package jackd2, and let both binary packages provide jackd as a virtual package.
- Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list email@example.com http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers