On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 06:24:10PM +0100, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> 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),

It is already in experimental (as jackd 1.9.4+svn3842-2).


pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list

Reply via email to