Hi Reinhard,

On Sun, Jun  6, 2010 at 10:43:33 +0200, Reinhard Tartler wrote:

> On So, Jun 06, 2010 at 00:15:54 (CEST), Julien Cristau wrote:
> > Your proposal talked about introducing a libjack-jackd2-0 and a
> > libjack0-0.118+svn3796 package, AIUI.  I don't understand why the
> > current libjack0 package can't stay.
> Hm. maybe I missed something here. So your idea is to have the original
> 'jack1' package have the non-virtual package libjack0, right? The idea
> was to make it easier in future to switch the jack implementation that
> is used to build applications against. But I agree that this is not
> really that important at this point. Moreover, I'm not even sure anymore
> that we would want to do that, but that's future discussion, right.
My idea was to have the j-a-c-k (jackd2) package provide the non-virtual
package libjack0, just like today.  I didn't think it was important
which libjack implementation apps build against, and this seemed the
easiest / least disruptive way.

> > I'm not quite sure about the rest of the plan (switching the j-a-c-k
> > package from one implementation to another one, introducing a
> > jackd-defaults), it seems overengineered compared to leaving the current
> > j-a-c-k package alone, and reintroducing jackd1 and its libjack
> > alongside it.  Can you explain why you need all this?
> The plan is to have 2 implementations of jackd2 in squeeze: jackd1 and
> jackd2. Both badly need their 'own' implementation of libjack, while
> regular applications don't care if they find libjack0 from jackd1 or
> jackd2 at run time. [1]
> For the default install, we want to install jackd2 by default as we
> believe that it provides a superiour user experience. However, we want
> to have all applications built against libjack0 from jackd1. Moreover,

OK as I said above I don't understand this bit...

> upstream has indicated that they want to provide backports for future,
> more featureful jackd1 packages on their website. Therefore I've
> imagined a jack-defaults package that can be overriden in that
> repository. A user would then only have to 'apt-get dist-upgrade' and
> have its jackd2 replaced by the newer jackd1 implementation.
'apt-get install jackd1' is not good enough?  If all apps are rebuilt
with the new shlibs, then this should replace jackd2 and its libjack0
with jackd1 and the corresponding lib, AFAICT.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list

Reply via email to