Bits from the Release Team: What should go into squeeze?

[Jonas Smedegaard]

On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 01:24:43PM -0400, Eric Dantan Rzewnicki wrote:
>On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 02:09:33PM -0300, Felipe Sateler wrote:
>> On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 13:50, Jonas Smedegaard <dr at jones.dk> wrote:
>> > On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 01:23:03PM -0300, Felipe Sateler wrote:
>> >> Also, if my understanding is correct, jack2 is ABI compatible with 
>> >> jack1, so no library transition is needed.
>> > That was my impression too.  If so, why don't we ship *both*? Let's 
>> > rename jackd → jackd1, package jackd2, and let both binary packages 
>> > provide jackd as a virtual package.
>> There are a bunch of packages depending on jackd (>= something), so 
>> this approach would break those apps. A metapackage depending on 
>> jackd1 | jackd2 would work, though.
>
>I would personally prefer this approach to the backports option.
>
>istr, we discussed this previously and there were some objections to 
>having both.

Could someone remembering that past discussion enlighten newcomers like 
me some more, or perhaps point to that particular discussion in 
mailinglists or similar?


Regards,

  - 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/20100317/0f935114/attachment-0001.pgp>