Re: jack2 packaging
On 06/14/2013 03:47 PM, Adrian Knoth wrote:
>
> Frankly, I don't like your idea of splitting the package and defining a
> conflict between them. There has to be a better solution which allows
> for co-installation.
>
> One could further split the jackd2 package into something like
>
>- jackd2-backends (all the .so files)
>- jackd2-jackd (depends on jackd2-backends)
>- jackd2-jackdbus (depends on jackd2-backends)
>
>
> and allow both jackd2-jackd{,dbus} packages to be co-installable.
+1
I suggested the same solution to Kaj in some inadvertently off-list
email exchange.
A short except from that email:
In short the motivation for that is:
* jackdbus is single instance (per session), but dynamic settings
* jackd2 has fixed settings but allows multiple instances.
Jackdmp from upstream allows to have both around, the current debian
package allows that too.
Please improve the packaging, package-naming and break jackd/bus out
into separate packages,... but don't make them conflict. That would be a
regression.
Cheers!
robin
___
pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list
pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Re: jack2 packaging
On 06/14/2013 04:09 PM, Felipe Sateler wrote: > On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 9:47 AM, Adrian Knoth > wrote: >> >> And while we're at it, let's move the manpages and the debconf files to >> jackd-defaults to avoid code duplication between jackd1 and jackd2. > > If you do this you need to make a new package in jackd-defaults > (jack-man?), and make jackd* depend on that. > Be careful. jackd1 and jack2 command-line options have diverged. They're not identical as they once were. Either provided dedicated man-pages for jackd, jack2, jackdbus or just a simple general one that points to jackd --help and jackd -d --help 2c, robin ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Re: jack2 packaging
On Fri, Jun 14, 2013, at 03:47 PM, Adrian Knoth wrote:
> Frankly, I don't like your idea of splitting the package and defining a
> conflict between them. There has to be a better solution which allows
> for co-installation.
>
> One could further split the jackd2 package into something like
>
>- jackd2-backends (all the .so files)
>- jackd2-jackd (depends on jackd2-backends)
>- jackd2-jackdbus (depends on jackd2-backends)
>
>
> and allow both jackd2-jackd{,dbus} packages to be co-installable. Of
> course, people can still mess it up, but at least there's a clear
> separation for those who want "easy" and "I can have both" for those who
> need it.
>
Perhaps we could add a install script asking the user whether or not to
remove the other one, and explain why they might want to do that.
>
> And while we're at it, let's move the manpages and the debconf files to
> jackd-defaults to avoid code duplication between jackd1 and jackd2.
>
>
___
pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list
pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Re: jack2 packaging
On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 9:47 AM, Adrian Knoth wrote: > > And while we're at it, let's move the manpages and the debconf files to > jackd-defaults to avoid code duplication between jackd1 and jackd2. If you do this you need to make a new package in jackd-defaults (jack-man?), and make jackd* depend on that. -- Saludos, Felipe Sateler ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Re: jack2 packaging
On 06/05/2013 07:18 AM, Kaj Ailomaa wrote:
I'd like to go ahead and change this in packaging, making jackdbus
and jackd separate for jack2. Also, make jackdbus conflict with
jackd. But, that is only if there are no bad implications from
doing this, and I currently know of none.
>>> I really like having both around. If possible, please do not make
>>> them conflict.
>>> I use jackdbus as main jackd (runs most of the time and automatically
>>> switches backends depending on connected interfaces). I also regularly
>>> use jackd for a 2nd or 3rd instance -- most of the time for debug
>>> purposes e.g. running ardour in valgrind without interfering with the
>>> main jackdbus, but also for multiple indep jack sessions on the same
>>> machine w/ different audio-interfaces.
>> I can see the point in being able to run multiple instances of jack,
>> which is quite possible with jackd. But, why - from a user point of
>> view - would you ever want to run both jackd and jackdbus at the same
>> time?
He wants jackdbus for all the fancy stuff and jackd for tasks usually
required by developers.
Since Robin has contributed substantially to Ardour (the recent timecode
changes, the video timeline, MIDI plugin functionality and so on and so
forth), I'd say it's safe to assume he knows what he is talking about.
;)
Frankly, I don't like your idea of splitting the package and defining a
conflict between them. There has to be a better solution which allows
for co-installation.
One could further split the jackd2 package into something like
- jackd2-backends (all the .so files)
- jackd2-jackd (depends on jackd2-backends)
- jackd2-jackdbus (depends on jackd2-backends)
and allow both jackd2-jackd{,dbus} packages to be co-installable. Of
course, people can still mess it up, but at least there's a clear
separation for those who want "easy" and "I can have both" for those who
need it.
And while we're at it, let's move the manpages and the debconf files to
jackd-defaults to avoid code duplication between jackd1 and jackd2.
Cheers
___
pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list
pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Re: jack2 packaging
sorry, seems like I replied to the wrong receiver. On Wed, Jun 5, 2013, at 05:42 AM, Kaj Ailomaa wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 5, 2013, at 02:49 AM, Robin Gareus wrote: > > On 06/05/2013 02:18 AM, Kaj Ailomaa wrote: > > > On Wed, May 29, 2013, at 09:12 AM, Kaj Ailomaa wrote: > > > > > I'd like to go ahead and change this in packaging, making jackdbus and > > > jackd separate for jack2. Also, make jackdbus conflict with jackd. > > > But, that is only if there are no bad implications from doing this, and > > > I currently know of none. > > > > > > > I really like having both around. If possible, please do not make them > > conflict. > > > > My current development habits depend on having both available at the > > same time and IMHO it'd be a major regression if that is no longer > > possible using the official debian package. > > > > I use jackdbus as main jackd (runs most of the time and automatically > > switches backends depending on connected interfaces). I also regularly > > use jackd for a 2nd or 3rd instance -- most of the time for debug > > purposes e.g. running ardour in valgrind without interfering with the > > main jackdbus, but also for multiple indep jack sessions on the same > > machine w/ different audio-interfaces. > > > > 2c, > > robin > > > > I can see the point in being able to run multiple instances of jack, > which is quite possible with jackd. But, why - from a user point of view > - would you ever want to run both jackd and jackdbus at the same time? > Which user based workflow are you fulfilling with this option? > > A fairly common problem: > - start patchage (starts jackd by default) > - start qjackctl (jack already running) > - stop jack with qjackct (appears to be stopped, but the process is > still running) > - start jack with qjackctl (if set to start jackdbus, now both jackd > and jackdbus are running) > > Now, this may be a qjackctl bug, but I'm still wondering.. > > If the reason to use both jackdbus and jackd is solely for development > purposes, I'd vote for making them conflict in packaging, just to make > things easier for the users. > Personally, I'd prefer there was only one jack, but that is of course > not possible to fix in packaging. > > I might need to read up more on the design choices for jack, why we > ended up with three variants, jack1, jack2 (and jackdbus). And also, > from a technical point of view, what they all are useful for. > But, from a user point of view, I don't see why there is need for more > than one. In a basic setup, all you need is one jack, and one instance > of jack. Options should be apply able, but don't need to be default. > > One way to cause even further headache would be to create three > packages: jackd2, jackdbus and jackd2-mixed. > > Later, I would also very much like to look at the possibility of being > able to auto start jack by starting any jack application. If this is bad > in some use cases, let's make it a settable option where-ever most > suitable (upstream or packaging). > For this, one would need a mechanism to make sure the correct jack is > started. This could also be an alternative to packaging jackd and > jackdbus separately. > > Right now, not even "pro" users have an easy time using linux audio, > unless they already know all about the different forms of jack. I think > this is a little ridiculous. ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Re: jack2 packaging
On 06/05/2013 02:18 AM, Kaj Ailomaa wrote: > On Wed, May 29, 2013, at 09:12 AM, Kaj Ailomaa wrote: > I'd like to go ahead and change this in packaging, making jackdbus and > jackd separate for jack2. Also, make jackdbus conflict with jackd. > But, that is only if there are no bad implications from doing this, and > I currently know of none. > I really like having both around. If possible, please do not make them conflict. My current development habits depend on having both available at the same time and IMHO it'd be a major regression if that is no longer possible using the official debian package. I use jackdbus as main jackd (runs most of the time and automatically switches backends depending on connected interfaces). I also regularly use jackd for a 2nd or 3rd instance -- most of the time for debug purposes e.g. running ardour in valgrind without interfering with the main jackdbus, but also for multiple indep jack sessions on the same machine w/ different audio-interfaces. 2c, robin ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
Re: jack2 packaging
On Wed, May 29, 2013, at 09:12 AM, Kaj Ailomaa wrote: > Has there been a discussion on what would be the best approach for > packaging jack? > > I find that there sometimes is a problem where users wind up having both > jackd and jackdbus running simultaniously. Is there any good reason for > that to be able to happen? > > Or should jack2 be packaged into two separate binary packages that > conflict with each other - jackd and jackdbus? > > What would the implications be for various jack applications? Is > jackdbus universally supported? Is jackd universally supported? > Does anyone have any opinions on this? I'd like to go ahead and change this in packaging, making jackdbus and jackd separate for jack2. Also, make jackdbus conflict with jackd. But, that is only if there are no bad implications from doing this, and I currently know of none. ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
jack2 packaging
Has there been a discussion on what would be the best approach for packaging jack? I find that there sometimes is a problem where users wind up having both jackd and jackdbus running simultaniously. Is there any good reason for that to be able to happen? Or should jack2 be packaged into two separate binary packages that conflict with each other - jackd and jackdbus? What would the implications be for various jack applications? Is jackdbus universally supported? Is jackd universally supported? ___ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
