31 Oct
2009
31 Oct
'09
11:37 p.m.
On Saturday 31 October 2009 19:38:26 Patrick Shirkey wrote:
On 11/01/2009 10:16 AM, fons(a)kokkinizita.net wrote:
Well, when I run one on my local machine, I want any changed configs to be
stored for the local setup. When I run one remotely through an ssh tunnel
say, I want any changed configs to be stored for the remote setup. (I think.
Does that make sense?)
On Sat, Oct 31, 2009 at 11:04:12PM +0000, Rui
Nuno Capela wrote:
I guess it's because currently the change state is held in memory
whereas allowing multiple instances will not provide a way to update the
change state without a significant modification to the existing code? my bad. that particular qjackctl -X command line
option was in fact
suggested by me but, well, just didn't make through implementation ;).
The option in the setup dialog creates a chicken/egg situation.
If the 'single instance' restriction is active you don't even
get a chance to change it. Unless you are so extremely clever
to realise that in order to enable a qjackctl instance on a
remote machine you first have to modify the configuration of
the local one. It makes sense, yes, lots of.
Just like some other things in qjackctl's setup.
If I want to change where qjackctl's main window will
appear on the desktop, I have to
- Move it to the required place.
- Open the setup dialog.
- Make some unwanted change.
- Undo that unwanted change.
- Click 'Save', which without the two previous actions
remains disabled. Why is it disabled ?
And still I've not seen any rationale for ever enforcing
a single qjackctl on any X server.
Patrick Shirkey
Boost Hardware Ltd
all the best,
drew