On Mon, 09 Nov 2009 23:01:59 -1000
david <gnome(a)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.
<http://lists.linuxaudio.org/pipermail/linux-audio-user/2009-September/063063.html>
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.)