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

Ralf Mardorf ralf.mardorf at alice-dsl.net
Fri Apr 16 19:55:56 UTC 2010

Adrian Knoth wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 10:31:08AM -0400, Paul Davis 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
> It's debian-specific.

No, I'm using a Debian and Ubuntu, were it's easy to build dummy 
packages and I'm using Suse too, were it's much dirtier. I'm doing this 
just to test a sequencer, my favourite distro is 64 Studio and they ship 
with the JACK I wish to use.

> I don't know the details, but the build system
> can't resolve dependencies on virtual shared libraries. Something like
> that.
> If you see
>    http://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/virtual-package-names-list.txt
> there's only a single virtual library package (libc-dev).
> There might be a way to handle it, but this would require us to put
> everything into a single package, let's say jackd1.deb and jackd2.deb
> both cater to the virtual package jackd.
>>> 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.
> Card reservation. That's what users are most whining about.
> I already proposed something like jackd -d pulseaudio, so the non-pro
> users can run their occational ardour session on top of PA without the
> need to ever shut it down.
> For real pros, there's still the second unoccupied card. Or third.
> I also provided a proof-of-concept implementation, I've shown a working
> ardour session on top of pulseaudio. Sure the latency is crap, but let's
> be honest? Who's connecting his el-cheapo laptop card to a pro setup?

Nobody. I don't have money, but at least an Envy24 card around 50 EUR 
would make an on-board audio device obsolete.

> They buy themselves a Multiface, a FFADO-supported card or some other
> pro gear. ;)
> Anyway, to have this documented: I came to #jack some weeks ago and
> asked whether it's right to move to jackd2 or not. Nobody cared to give
> an answer, yours was "That's a political question."

JACK2 doesn't disconnect clients. The disadvantage: There might be 
phasing between the left and the right channel. The advantage: Even if 
your hardware isn't good for usage with Linux audio, you are able to use 
it, but the quality isn't optimal.

> Nobody said "tschack also has SMP and even performs better than jackd2",
> nobody said "we're going to have jack-session support in jackd1", in
> general, all communication from the jack team was "jackd2 is more or
> less a drop-in replacement for jackd1", and the jackd2 camp added "we
> have fancy SMP, we have fancy card reservation, we have glitchless
> connections" and the lot.
> So to the outside, the impression was that jackd1 development got stuck
> (somewhere around 0.116 or even before) and that jackd2 will be its
> successor, the development branch, if you want. Renaming it from jackdmp
> to jackd2 didn't help, sharing the same website, trac and svn didn't
> help.
> The jack team (if such a thing exists) never set its goals, whether
> jackd2 is just a playground, an alternative or the successor. There is
> no jackd1 roadmap, there was nobody saying "we're going to have SMP as
> well".
> And now you wonder why everyone else was under the impression that the
> world only needs one jackd implementation and picked the one with the
> higher number?
> Sit together and agree on some goals. Don't have three incompatible
> netjack implementations, five session management APIs and four different
> jackd incarnations just for each corner case. I'm clearly exaggerating
> here, but that's exactly what was missing in the past: a decent
> statement to users about goals, features and how things relate to each
> other.
> Cheerio
> PS: jackd2 needs to rename jack_rec to jackrec, jackd1 and jackd2 should
> share the same manpages (maybe from the same svn branch), netjack
> command line parameters need to be the same. That's a plea to both,
> jackd1 and jackd2. Work together, forward your patches, read your
> tickets. Make it less cumbersome for users, they are the ultimate
> judges.

Users like me who reported their experiences were dissed other users got 
Apple or Microsoft and there only were the users that were comfortable.

And now I'm comfortable, because I do need JACK2, but I'm empathetic 
with those who prefer JACK1, because I did suffer a lot when JACK1 was 
default, while I need to use JACK2.

There's only one good solution. Every user must have the choice between 
JACK1 and JACK2.


More information about the Linux-audio-dev mailing list