JACK2 package naming convention

[Adrian Knoth]

On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 11:59:49AM +0100, Daniel James wrote:

Hi!

> Sounds like a good plan :-) Can I get the JACK 1.9.3 packages sponsored  
> for upload to experimental? Or do they need more work first?
>
> http://apt.64studio.com/backports/pool/main/j/jack-audio-connection-kit/jack-audio-connection-kit_1.9.3-2.dsc
 
> http://apt.64studio.com/backports/pool/main/j/jack-audio-connection-kit/jack-audio-connection-kit_1.9.3-2.tar.gz 
>  
> http://apt.64studio.com/backports/pool/main/j/jack-audio-connection-kit/jack-audio-connection-kit_1.9.3-2_source.changes


IMHO, the package is NOT ready for uploading, because it differs too
much from the current jack1 package in unstable. It lacks several
improvements we did over the last few months.

To give some examples:

   * libjack0.100* should be dropped
   * IEEE 1394 backends should be in a separate package
   * template for RT POSIX configuration is missing
   * init-script should be dropped

I'd rather take the existing jackd1 package and import the new upstream
code, then fix the missing bits (waf, some patches, package naming,
paths and so on).

If you like, I could give it a whirl.


Cheerio

-- 
mail: adi at thur.de  	http://adi.thur.de	PGP/GPG: key via keyserver