On Sat, May 29, 2010 at 16:55, Adrian Knoth <a...@drcomp.erfurt.thur.de> wrote:
> On Sat, May 29, 2010 at 03:55:36PM -0400, Eric Dantan Rzewnicki wrote:
>> >> "we switch to jackd2 now". No one disagreed.
>> > Nope, that's right:  jack2 now.  Enable (easy) user switching later.
>> + possibly in time for squeeze, which is Reinhard's question: are we
>> still going to try for it, and therefore, do we need to get a more
>> detailed note to release-team (last week) about what it entails for
>> coordination between this team and them.
> I think it's not too hard to revive the jackd1 package, so we can at
> least provide jackd1 and jackd2 in squeeze.
> Given the tons of C++ symbols in jackd2, I'd also suggest to make the
> jackd1 package the official dev package and also the "donator" of the
> symbols file.

I'm quite confused by this. AFAIK, jack is a pure C API, so C++
symbols have no place in there. However, I understood from the last
discussion that those are not really bogus, but are some sort of
internal (server-lib) API, which is not allowed to be used by regular
clients. Is this correct?

Anyway, I really think that for jack it is much better to use a shlibs file.


Felipe Sateler

pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list

Reply via email to