On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 04:38:17 (CEST), Felipe Sateler wrote:
On Sun, Apr 25, 2010 at 14:27, Reinhard Tartler siret...@tauware.de wrote:
On Sun, Apr 25, 2010 at 19:47:47 (CEST), Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
I notice, though, that above links only mention API, not ABI. Is it
safe to expect
Davis p...@linuxaudiosystems.com
To: Gabriel M. Beddingfield gabrb...@gmail.com
Cc: Jack-Devel jack-de...@lists.jackaudio.org
Subject: Re: [Jack-Devel] packaging jack - details on plan B (fwd)
On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 9:20 AM, Gabriel M. Beddingfield gabrb...@gmail.com
wrote:
Jack Devs:
Please see
On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 08:29:40AM -0500, Gabriel M. Beddingfield wrote:
On Sun, 25 Apr 2010, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
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?
On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 9:20 AM, Gabriel M. Beddingfield
gabrb...@gmail.com wrote:
ABI back-compatibility has never been assured - if a program was
linked against JACK API M.N.m and the runtime installation is a
version earlier than that, there may be problems as you noted. the
new rules on
On Mon, 26 Apr 2010, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 9:20 AM, Gabriel M. Beddingfield
gabrb...@gmail.com wrote:
ABI back-compatibility has never been assured - if a program was linked
against JACK API M.N.m and the runtime installation is a version earlier
than that, there
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
On Sun, Apr 25, 2010 at 19:47:47 (CEST), Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
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?
Generally speaking, yes.
(well, unless there are
Hi Reinhard and others,
On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 02:16:36PM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 12:26:41PM +0200, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
With you're proposal, I think switching from one alternative
implementation to another one won't work. For example switching
from
On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 10:55:20AM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
Hi Reinhard and others,
On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 02:16:36PM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 12:26:41PM +0200, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
With you're proposal, I think switching from one alternative
On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 14:16:36 (CEST), Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
2. Initially release src:jackd2:
* jackd2 conflicts/replaces/provides jackd
* libjack0-jackd2 conflicts/replaces libjack0
* libjack0-jackd2 provides libjack-0.116.0
* libjack-jackd2-dev conflicts libjack-dev
On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 07:35:28AM -0400, Eric Dantan Rzewnicki wrote:
On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 10:55:20AM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
If I get no response on this by sunday, and noone else objects, I
will go ahead with my proposed plan.
I've tried to follow this as closely as I can, but
Hi guys,
I'm new to the details of deb packaging... so I may be
replying to the wrong snippets... but:
Package: libjack-jackd2-0
Provides: libjack-0.116.0
Conflicts: libjack0
Yes, something like that.
4. Release jackd1 to experimental, with libjack0 providing virtual
package
On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 02:32:45PM -0500, Gabriel M. Beddingfield wrote:
Therefore, any old program will work without recompile on a new
libjack0. Jack 2 (formerly jackdmp) has also rigorously maintained
binary compatability with Jack 1.[3]
[...]
[3] Going backwards has never been
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
On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 02:29:00PM +0200, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 14:16:36 (CEST), Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
2. Initially release src:jackd2:
* jackd2 conflicts/replaces/provides jackd
* libjack0-jackd2 conflicts/replaces libjack0
* libjack0-jackd2 provides
On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 05:52:35PM -0500, Gabriel M. Beddingfield wrote:
On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 02:32:45PM -0500, Gabriel M. Beddingfield wrote:
[1] http://trac.jackaudio.org/wiki/SuggestedPackagingApproach
Note that this is a wiki and the suggestions come from only one person.
True, but
On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 12:26:41PM +0200, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 10:17:42 (CEST), Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
On Sat, Apr 17, 2010 at 09:32:47PM +0200, torbenh wrote:
On Sat, Apr 17, 2010 at 09:13:34PM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
I propose to stick to jackd1 as the
17 matches
Mail list logo
