packaging jack...

[Jonas Smedegaard]

On Sat, Apr 17, 2010 at 09:32:47PM +0200, torbenh wrote:
>On Sat, Apr 17, 2010 at 09:13:34PM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:

>> Not an answer (as you know I am incapable of doing so), but I
>> propose to stick to jackd1 as the default/only library for other
>> packages to rely on until the rerlease of Squeeze, and only offer
>> alternative daemons (and eventually - most likely post-Squeeze -
>> alternative libraries too) if they do not interfere with that.
>
>stop right here.
>the library and the daemon are tied together.
>the protocol between jackd and libjack is NOT fixed.
>
>(basically i consider it a mistake to even have libjack and jackd in
>different packages) but it might make sense to have that.

The separation of library and daemon is so that an application can link 
against the library without forcing the daemon to be installed: the JACK 
support might be optional for that application (without it being a 
plugin that can be packaged separately from the main application.


>still you MUST ALWAYS lock the a jackd and libjack package together.

Thanks for the clarification.

I think others have tried pointing it out to me already, and it begins 
to get through my thick skull: Even if both ABI and API is compatible 
across implementations, it is _application_ ABI and API - the daemon use 
a _different API/ABI which is not set in stone so switching daemon 
forces a switch of library too.  Was that correctly summarized?


  - Jonas

-- 
* Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
* Tlf.: +45 40843136  Website: http://dr.jones.dk/

  [x] quote me freely  [ ] ask before reusing  [ ] keep private
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-multimedia-maintainers/attachments/20100417/72134f16/attachment-0001.pgp>