Re: [LAD] jack2's dbus name

[it'd be nice if you keep all the cc'ed original lists in the thread]

On Mon, 2009-06-15 at 19:34 +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> On Mon, 15.06.09 10:16, Fernando Lopez-Lezcano (nando@email-addr-hidden) wrote:
>
> > > Distributions will certainly enable the D-Bus code in JACK if they
> > > ship it. So, I have no problem with depending on a dbus'ified jack for
> > > this logic to work.
> >
> > >From a packagers' (for Fedora/Planet CCRMA) point of view the future
> > dbus-capable jack should be able to be used without dbus support as well
> > as with it _without_ having to recompile it (that is without having to
> > repackage it differently). For an example of non-dbus usage, I may want
> > to start jack on a remote host where there is no desktop session at the
> > moment and thus dbus is not usable.
>
> No. That use case does not make any sense. The D-Bus session bus is
> autospawned if necessary these days.

So, let's say host A is where I am logged in now and I'm running a
desktop. The I start a terminal, just do "slogin B" (for simplicity
let's assume nobody is logged in into B at the time) and then I would
have dbus running there without a desktop? What is taking care of
setting up the dbus session, is that ssh? The login process?

> I personally see no value in dbus-less builds. That's just pointless
> conservatism, mostly based on unfounded anti D-Bus FUD. But then
> again, I am not really a jack developer, so what I think is mostly
> irrelevant.

I understand that you _personally_ would see no value in dbus-less
builds. But others do see value. I am assuming that others might have
valid reasons for doing things in a different way, and that my view of
the universe is not the only one possible.

In a very long thread about the dbus issues in the jack developers list
it was (I think) agreed that the core innards of jack would not
explicitly depend on dbus at compile time but rather at runtime. So you
could run jack with dbus support or without it, without having to
recompile it. Everyone is happy. Nothing is forced on anybody. Future
usage will eventually make the non-dbus option go away or not. Nobody is
inconvenienced by that.

-- Fernando

_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@email-addr-hidden
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Received on Tue Jun 16 00:15:02 2009