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.


pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list

Reply via email to