Sorting the jack build-dependency mess

Jonas Smedegaard dr at
Tue Oct 26 14:57:14 UTC 2010

On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 11:39:07AM -0300, Felipe Sateler wrote:
>On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 07:08, Adrian Knoth <adi at> wrote:
>> On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 08:18:23PM -0300, Felipe Sateler wrote:
>>> > We need not change anything now, just use a more meaningful tag 
>>> > than "" next time we want to bump.
>>> I think this makes most sense. (although it does require renaming 
>>> libjack-dev to libjack-jackd1-dev and making it Provide: 
>>> libjack-dev).
>> Is that required now? I don't think so. Policy 7.5:

[elaboration snipped]

>> So long story short: it seems the only change reguired right now is 
>> the updated jackd2 package with libjack-jackd2-dev "Provides: 
>> libjack-dev".
>> And that's already built and waiting for an upload on my system. Just 
>> give me the "OK" in case you agree. ;)
>Yes. But when libjack${tag}-dev appears, libjack-dev needs to be 
>renamed to something less generic, to allow people to require jackd1 if 
>they really need to.

I think noone disagrees with that. Note "right now" and similar 
expressions in Adrians text that you quoted here above. :-)

  - Jonas

  * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
  * Tlf.: +45 40843136  Website:

  [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: <>

More information about the pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list