[LAU] yoshimi bug - fixed by me !
gnome at hawaii.rr.com
Tue Nov 10 06:24:58 EST 2009
hollunder at gmx.at wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 00:52:46 -1000
> david <gnome at hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>> hollunder at gmx.at wrote:
>>> On Mon, 09 Nov 2009 23:01:59 -1000
>>> david <gnome at hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>>>> cal wrote:
>>>>> david wrote:
>>>>>> [ ... ]
>>>>>> I am running the jackd that my distro provides - 0.109.2.
>>>>>> No why distros don't include a newer version eludes me ...
>>>>> Indeed. You're not the first and won't be the last to ask that.
>>>>> Last time this came up in the context of yoshimi, Josh Lawrence
>>>>> had a fairly elegant solution.
>>>> OK, tracked down the 64studio backports, and checked. It has JACK
>>>> 1.9.2-0.64studio2~lenny1. That doesn't sound like 0.116.etc ...
>>> It isn't, it's jack2, formerly known as jackdmp.
>>>>> That thread also featured a strong comment:
>>>>> jackaudio.org notes that "nobody should be using 0.109 at this
>>>>> point in time".
>>>>> This is the modern age after all.
>>> This was almost a year ago. (and it feels like three years)
>>>> This makes me ask the question, "What are the JACK developers NOT
>>>> doing that is keeping their recommendation from replacing .109
>>>> with .116 in repositories, then?" Other programs got it done
>>>> somehow ...
>>> It seems distributions are simply too slow, especially debian based
>>> ones. At least that's my impression.
>> Weird, but other programs (general use ones) seem to be much closer
>> to "current" versions than JACK is. I wonder if there isn't some
>> hoop-jumping jackaudio hasn't done properly for Debian. Or maybe the
>> Debian folk in charge of approving JACK versions for inclusion in
>> Debian worship at the altar of Pulseaudio and just want to make JACK
>> go away. (I know, nobody involved in open source would be
>> deliberately sabotaging a competitor.)
> There also seems to be a long-standing issue with jack in debian, they
> messed p some naming years ago and didn't manage to fix to date and
> this causes some issues as well. I don't know the details tough.
> I don't know what the source of all this trouble is, but pretty much
> all distros get it right.
Hmm, then I guess the distros I've tried (many) must "have it right" to
use jack 0.109.2 - cuz that seems to be what they're using. The only one
I've tried here that is using 0.116.x is the Musix 2 beta.
> There's was an interesting post: http://ardour.org/node/2543
Yup. Sigh. When something doesn't work, it's always someone else's
fault. If you're the app developer, it's the distro packagers' fault. If
you're a distro packager, it's the app's fault. And everything is too
complicated for anyone to really figure out what's causing the problem,
>>> Don't quite get it in the case of 64studio where jack is an
>>> essential part. Guess they focused on the next version before
>>> bothering with that.
>> Possible. I can't install the DVD releases of 64Studio on my music
>> box - its optical drive doesn't seem reliably read all of a DVD - and
>> while it will boot from a flash drive, I haven't found any Linux
>> audio distros that will install from a flash drive. They all insist
>> on looking for an install CD. And nobody seems to make netboot
>> installs anymore except Debian's stock distro.
> This is a pity, especially since flash drives get bigger than DVDs.
> Haven't really looked into it, but it would seem logical for a number
> of reasons to move from DVD to flash, not the other way around.
It sure is. There are some great utilities (like NetBootIN) and manual
ways to turn a Live CD/DVD ISO into a bootable flash drive - but they
ALL proceed to look only at the CDROM drive when you try to install
them. I'm sure someone that knows what they're doing could figure out
how to generalize the process - after all, when a Live CD/DVD boots and
you select install, it already knows what drive it started from, so why
can't it just look there?????
gnome at hawaii.rr.com
authenticity, honesty, community
More information about the Linux-audio-user