david wrote:
> cal wrote:
>> david wrote:
>>> [ ... ]
>>> I am running the jackd that my distro provides - 0.109.2.
>>>
>>> No why distros don't include a newer version eludes me ...
>> Indeed. You're not the first and won't be the last to ask that. Last time
>> this came up in the context of yoshimi, Josh Lawrence had a fairly elegant solution.
>> <http://lists.linuxaudio.org/pipermail/linux-audio-user/2009-September/063063.html>
>
> OK, tracked down the 64studio backports, and checked. It has JACK
> 1.9.2-0.64studio2~lenny1. That doesn't sound like 0.116.etc ...
ah, but it is in fact very much like 0.116 etc, see <http://www.jackaudio.org/node/24>
>> That thread also featured a strong comment:
>> jackaudio.org notes that "nobody should be using 0.109 at this point in time".
>>
>> This is the modern age after all.
>
> This makes me ask the question, "What are the JACK developers NOT doing
> that is keeping their recommendation from replacing .109 with .116 in
> repositories, then?" Other programs got it done somehow ...
That's so far off the mark I really have to leave it alone.
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user@email-addr-hidden
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-user
Received on Tue Nov 10 12:15:03 2009
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Nov 10 2009 - 12:15:03 EET