Fwd: The Situation(s) With JACK

[Adrian Knoth]

On 12/10/2011 10:11 PM, Reinhard Tartler wrote:

>> Maybe not a bad thing to follow the discussion on Jack-devel to improve
>> the JACK situation.
>>
>> http://lists.jackaudio.org/private.cgi/jack-devel-jackaudio.org/2011-December/008537.html
> Seems that the list requires authentication to see the archives.

tl;dr

Nothing important for us thus far. Basically, upstream considers to
introduce SONAME and to bump it whenever there is an incompatible
API/ABI change, because weak symbols don't work reliably on Linux.

Also, either a new jackd3 will be written based on boost or jackd2 will
be further extended, that is, the jackd1 devs might end up in the jackd2
camp.

Either way, no action has taken, yet, and the thread turned into a
lengthy discussion.

If we have special wishes wrt SONAME, header files, naming or the
relation between any of the jackd components, we're encouraged to tell
them.


Cheers

PS: Sorry for kicking in late, I'm horribly busy atm.