[LAD] jack2's dbus name

[alex stone]

On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 9:34 PM, Lennart Poettering<mzynq at 0pointer.de> wrote:
> On Mon, 15.06.09 10:16, Fernando Lopez-Lezcano (nando at ccrma.Stanford.EDU) wrote:
>
>> > Distributions will certainly enable the D-Bus code in JACK if they
>> > ship it. So, I have no problem with depending on a dbus'ified jack for
>> > this logic to work.
>>
>> >From a packagers' (for Fedora/Planet CCRMA) point of view the future
>> dbus-capable jack should be able to be used without dbus support as well
>> as with it _without_ having to recompile it (that is without having to
>> repackage it differently). For an example of non-dbus usage, I may want
>> to start jack on a remote host where there is no desktop session at the
>> moment and thus dbus is not usable.
>
> No. That use case does not make any sense. The D-Bus session bus is
> autospawned if necessary these days.
>
> I personally see no value in dbus-less builds. That's just pointless
> conservatism, mostly based on unfounded anti D-Bus FUD. But then
> again, I am not really a jack developer, so what I think is mostly
> irrelevant.
>
> Lennart
>
> --
> Lennart Poettering                        Red Hat, Inc.
> lennart [at] poettering [dot] net
> http://0pointer.net/lennart/           GnuPG 0x1A015CC4
> _______________________________________________
> Linux-audio-dev mailing list
> Linux-audio-dev at lists.linuxaudio.org
> http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
>

No Lennart, it makes complete sense.
It's about choice, whatever the reasons might be.

And i can see the use case for, as an example, a headless rig running
a big sampler, i.e., a raw warrior box.

You may not see the need for this, but that doesn't mean that
particular choice isn't just as valid as your own view.

Alex.

-- 
www.openoctave.org,

midi-subscribe at openoctave.org
development-subscribe at openoctave.org