[LAD] [Jack-Devel] distros migrating to JACK2?

Paul Davis paul at linuxaudiosystems.com
Fri Apr 16 14:31:08 UTC 2010

On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 10:15 AM, Adrian Knoth
<adi at drcomp.erfurt.thur.de> wrote:
> First, we can't have virtual packages for shared libraries in Debian, so
> we cannot provide two different versions of libjack.

i don't understand this. either i'm not understanding the point, or it
sounds likea debian-specific limitation. i use fedora+ccrma, which has
jack2. i removed jack2 (--nodeps) and overlaid jack1. all fedora
packages that relate to JACK continue to work normally. am i not
understanding what you mean?

> Second, we don't want application A require jack1 and application B
> jackd2, so you can't run both applications. As this would be the case if
> you have different jackd versions with different feature sets, we
> entirely counter this by only packaging one version.

this seems entirely reasonable.

> This is also beneficial wrt supporting. We don't want different problems
> with different versions, we don't want writing patches twice, once for
> jackd1 and a second time for jackd2.

this is understandable, if less reasonable. at this point in time, the
bugs in jack2 are entirely different bugs from the bugs in jack1. the
existence of a bug in either version doesn't predict the status of
that functionality in the other.

> Foremost, we don't want users to stumble because they're using "the
> wrong" version. To us, jackd has nothing to do with choice, it's simply
> an inter-application framework for routing audio/midi data, and no user
> should ever need to care about this. (Do you care about libreadline? It
> simply has to be there)

this seems sort of right, although only as long as you use "jack" to
refer to the library+server and not any of the front end control
apps,patchers etc.

> That said, we expect upstream to provide at least one feature-complete
> jackd implementation. This means DBUS support (pulseaudio integration),
> jack-session support, ladish support or whatever the feature should be,
> e.g. SMP.

this is where things really fall apart because it presupposes
agreement on the feature set, an agreement which as i think you know
just isn't there.

> Since jack-session is rather new and the decision was made prior to
> this, since CCRMA and Gentoo's pro-audio overlay all use jackd2, we
> chose jackd2 to be this feature-complete jackd implementation.

> Consider this as a chance to avoid even more divergence among jackd
> implementations.

I understand the sentiment, but I am not sure that this is likely to
have this result.

More information about the Linux-audio-dev mailing list