On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 03:36:02PM -0500, Gabriel M. Beddingfield wrote:

Hi Jonas,

On Fri, 23 Apr 2010, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:

[3] Going backwards has never been promised, though.  A
  program compiled against 0.118.0 will work with 0.34.0.
  However, the use of weak symbols for new features may
  make this available.

Isn't it exactly "going backwards" if jackd2 becomes the default and jackd1 only an optional alternative? Then applications are compiled against jackd2 and potentially using jackd1 at runtime. Is that assured to work too, or only hopefully working if weak symbols work out as planned?

Jack2/Jack1 are API-synchronized. Here are the sync points that have been published:

   JACK1    JACK2     REF
   -------  -----  --------
   0.118.0  1.9.4  [1]
   0.116.2  1.9.1  [2], [3]

It is reasonable to expect that a program compiled against Jack2 1.9.1 will work fine with 0.116.2.

Note also that the API changes since 0.109.0 (the first stable JACK MIDI release) have been minor. (Adding weak symbols, internal changes, documentations, internal header reorg.)


[1] http://jackaudio.org/node/28
[2] http://jackaudio.org/node/23
[3] http://jackaudio.org/node/22

Thanks for the clarification.

I notice, though, that above links only mention API, not ABI. Is it safe to expect library ABI (runtime linkage) to be frozen too if its API (compile time interface) is?

Kind regards,

 - 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