Re: [LAD] distros migrating to JACK2?

torbenh wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 11:21:12AM +0200, Adrian Knoth wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 03:06:28PM +0900, michael noble wrote:
>>
>>
>>> hi folks,
>>>
>> Hi!
>>
>>
>>> Are any interested or invested parties willing to provide some clarification
>>> on this? I know distros are fully welcome to package whatever they wish. I
>>> also am pretty sure that whatever happens will happen regardless of my
>>> opinion on the matter. There have, however, been some colorful exchanges
>>> between packagers and devs regarding JACK in the past so in the interest of
>>> transparency and openness I was hoping involved parties might have something
>>> to say about this.
>>>
>> Here's a good summary:
>>
>> http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2010-April/134723.html
>>
>>
>> By now, Debian, Ubuntu and OpenSuse are already in, Fedora is still
>> undecided.
>>
>> So yes, it's true, I've asked all the major distributions to switch to
>> jackd2, so users have the same feature set no matter which distro they
>> use.
>>
>> Also note that there's no (easy) way back, we're entirely switching to
>> jackd2, that is, the user won't have the possibility to select jackd1
>> instead.
>>
>
> great... many thanks. :(((((((
>

Btw. for e.g. Suse 64-bit there is jack and libjack etc. for 32-bit and
64-bit. I can't see any reason to need this. Why not having one package
for all JACK1 and another for all JACK2 files, just fitting to one
architecture? Why do the packages for applications depending to JACK
need to make precise distinctions between JACK1 and JACK2? At the end
they are ok with any version of JACK, but the user has to manage this by
dirty solutions. Who needs JACK, but audio guys? It's similar for other
distros. FWIW I'm a 64 Studio user.
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@email-addr-hidden
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Received on Fri Apr 16 20:15:04 2010