On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 00:52:46 -1000
david <gnome@email-addr-hidden> wrote:
> hollunder@email-addr-hidden wrote:
> > On Mon, 09 Nov 2009 23:01:59 -1000
> > david <gnome@email-addr-hidden> 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 ...
> >
> > It isn't, it's jack2, formerly known as jackdmp.
> >
> >>> 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 was almost a year ago. (and it feels like three years)
> >
> >> 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 ...
> >
> > It seems distributions are simply too slow, especially debian based
> > ones. At least that's my impression.
>
> Weird, but other programs (general use ones) seem to be much closer
> to "current" versions than JACK is. I wonder if there isn't some
> hoop-jumping jackaudio hasn't done properly for Debian. Or maybe the
> Debian folk in charge of approving JACK versions for inclusion in
> Debian worship at the altar of Pulseaudio and just want to make JACK
> go away. (I know, nobody involved in open source would be
> deliberately sabotaging a competitor.)
There also seems to be a long-standing issue with jack in debian, they
messed p some naming years ago and didn't manage to fix to date and
this causes some issues as well. I don't know the details tough.
I don't know what the source of all this trouble is, but pretty much
all distros get it right.
There's was an interesting post: http://ardour.org/node/2543
> > Don't quite get it in the case of 64studio where jack is an
> > essential part. Guess they focused on the next version before
> > bothering with that.
>
> Possible. I can't install the DVD releases of 64Studio on my music
> box - its optical drive doesn't seem reliably read all of a DVD - and
> while it will boot from a flash drive, I haven't found any Linux
> audio distros that will install from a flash drive. They all insist
> on looking for an install CD. And nobody seems to make netboot
> installs anymore except Debian's stock distro.
This is a pity, especially since flash drives get bigger than DVDs.
Haven't really looked into it, but it would seem logical for a number
of reasons to move from DVD to flash, not the other way around.
Regards,
Philipp
_______________________________________________
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 16:15:03 2009
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Nov 10 2009 - 16:15:03 EET