On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 01:24:43PM -0400, Eric Dantan Rzewnicki 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. 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.

Could someone remembering that past discussion enlighten newcomers like me some more, or perhaps point to that particular discussion in mailinglists or similar?


 - 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