Fons Adriaensen wrote:
>>> Ideally, jackdbus shouldn't even allow jackd binary to
>>> exist in $PATH (and vice versa), to prevent the exact
>>> kind of situation that Fons is experiencing.
> Programs that do that kind of things have a name
> here: malware. I'm the boss on my system, and I
> will decide what goes into $PATH.
I'm not talking about forced removal of the previously installed
program. More like refusal to install at all if you try to install it in
parallel to existing JACK-legacy installation. And the "D-Bus JACK and
Classic JACK mixture" variant on
http://trac.jackaudio.org/wiki/JackDbusPackaging should be clearly
marked as dangerously confusing (and not used by any distributions).
It's like installing two different slightly incompatible versions of
libc in such a way that they are picked randomly, and expecting the
whole system to work properly. It's not supposed to work, and allowing
such installations is asking for complaints like the one that started
this thread. Or like starting (in parallel) two different HTTP servers
trying to bind to the same address and port.
Package managers have a way to specify a conflict between two packages
if they are replacements of each other, and I don't see anyone
describing that as malware.
Krzysztof
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@email-addr-hidden
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Received on Tue May 19 20:15:04 2009
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue May 19 2009 - 20:15:05 EEST