[LAD] Interoperability between session management systems

Johannes Kroll jkroll at lavabit.com
Sun Feb 24 15:21:33 UTC 2013

On Sun, 24 Feb 2013 01:41:58 -0800
"J. Liles" <malnourite at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sat, Feb 23, 2013 at 9:13 PM, hermann meyer <brummer- at web.de> wrote:
> >  Am 24.02.2013 06:02, schrieb J. Liles:
> >
> >  I stated it out already in a other thread: without ever been released as
> >> NSM (means available as tarball, or what ever, with ONLY NSM included), I
> >> wouldn't support it.
> >>
> >
> > This is stupid. What difference does it make what other programs are in
> > the source repository? Distributions can and should package the programs
> > individually. Also, NSM clients require from the NSM server implementation.
> > There is no libnsm to link to etc. This is the definition of a non-issue.
> >
> >
> > So be it for you.
> > For me, a session management which I will support in my projects, have to
> > be released as such. Otherwise I wouldn't waste my time with it. period.
> >
> You're not making any sense. Why would I waste my time trying to make
> something which is already 100% modular and independent appear to be more
> so? You clearly have some rather fundamental misunderstanding of what's
> involved here. All Non-DAW etc have in common with NSM is that they share
> the same author and happen to work together. If that's too much integration
> for you, well then you must have some very strange motives.

I don't understand you two... 

Hermann, why don't use the client parts of NSM as they are if you want
to support it... 

J, why don't you package only the code needed to create an NSM client
separately if it's important to him... Giving out a tarball with only
the client code, an example client, and (a link to) the documentation
won't hurt adoption...

More information about the Linux-audio-dev mailing list