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. A metapackage depending on > jackd1 | jackd2 would work, though.
I would personally prefer this approach to the backports option. istr, we discussed this previously and there were some objections to having both. -edrz _______________________________________________ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list firstname.lastname@example.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers