10 Nov
2009
10 Nov
'09
5:17 a.m.
david wrote:
That's so far
off the mark I really have to leave it alone.
cal wrote:
ah, but it is
in fact very much like 0.116 etc, see <http://www.jackaudio.org/node/24>
david wrote:
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 ... [ ... ]
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>
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 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 ...