15 Jun
2009
15 Jun
'09
4:35 p.m.
On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 9:34 PM, Lennart Poettering<mzynq(a)0pointer.de> wrote:
On Mon, 15.06.09 10:16, Fernando Lopez-Lezcano
(nando(a)ccrma.Stanford.EDU) wrote:
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(a)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(a)openoctave.org
development-subscribe(a)openoctave.org
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.