On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 02:09:33PM -0300, Felipe Sateler wrote:
On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 13:50, Jonas Smedegaard <d...@jones.dk> wrote:
On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 01:23:03PM -0300, Felipe Sateler wrote:

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.

There are a bunch of packages depending on jackd (>= something), so this approach would break those apps.

Ah, good point.

A metapackage depending on jackd1 | jackd2 would work, though.

I find a metapackage an inelegant approach.

My suggestion is then to keep jackd as-is for now but

  a) introduce a new jackd2
     (hopefully ready for inclusion with Squeeze),
  b) try to get rid of versioned dependencies on jackd
     (maybe not finished before freeze of squeeze),
and when both are done then
  c) rename jackd to jackd1 and provide virtual jackd
     (probably post-squeeze).

How does that sound?

 - Jonas

* Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
* Tlf.: +45 40843136  Website: http://dr.jones.dk/

 [x] quote me freely  [ ] ask before reusing  [ ] keep private

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list

Reply via email to