On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 10:15 AM, Adrian Knoth
i don't understand this. either i'm not understanding the point, or it
sounds likea debian-specific limitation. i use fedora+ccrma, which has
jack2. i removed jack2 (--nodeps) and overlaid jack1. all fedora
packages that relate to JACK continue to work normally. am i not
understanding what you mean?
> Second, we don't want application A require jack1 and application B
this seems entirely reasonable.
> This is also beneficial wrt supporting. We don't want different problems
this is understandable, if less reasonable. at this point in time, the
bugs in jack2 are entirely different bugs from the bugs in jack1. the
existence of a bug in either version doesn't predict the status of
that functionality in the other.
> Foremost, we don't want users to stumble because they're using "the
this seems sort of right, although only as long as you use "jack" to
refer to the library+server and not any of the front end control
> That said, we expect upstream to provide at least one feature-complete
this is where things really fall apart because it presupposes
agreement on the feature set, an agreement which as i think you know
just isn't there.
> Since jack-session is rather new and the decision was made prior to
> Consider this as a chance to avoid even more divergence among jackd
I understand the sentiment, but I am not sure that this is likely to
have this result.
Linux-audio-dev mailing list