Re: [LAD] ANN: Upcoming L2Ork spring event and Midwest tour
Thanks! :-) Best wishes, Ico > -Original Message- > From: Ralf Mardorf [mailto:ralf.mard...@alice-dsl.net] > Sent: Friday, April 16, 2010 9:21 AM > To: Ivica Ico Bukvic > Cc: linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org > Subject: Re: [LAD] ANN: Upcoming L2Ork spring event and Midwest tour > > I wish you success :)! ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] [Jack-Devel] distros migrating to JACK2?
Paul Davis wrote: > We didn't write JACK to be part of the desktop > environment, we wrote it as a tool for people doing serious > audio&music work. Full ACK, from the standpoint of a user. > the right thing being that > anyone can implement their own version of JACK and if its compliant > then anyone can use it at any time. Full ACK, from the standpoint of a user. > I can understand > why newcomers to this ecosystem would not share their opinion. Because users, even users who developed well known professional audio equipment are dissed as idiots, from the standpoint of a developer of well known professional audio equipment. It seems to be that users are unimportant, resp. desktop users seems to be important regarding to JACK. ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] [Jack-Devel] distros migrating to JACK2?
On Fri, 16 Apr 2010 16:33:00 -0400 Paul Davis wrote: > Does anyone really want to have to choose between JACK1 and JACK2 (and > tschak? perhaps) on a permanent basis? Does anyone want to step up and > make the hard decision about NetJACK1 or NetJACK2? Can that decision > even *be* made? Is that supposed to be my job? > > --p Thank you for going to the trouble to post this very clear and detailed explanation. -- Will J Godfrey http://www.musically.me.uk Say you have a poem and I have a tune. Exchange them and we can both have a poem, a tune, and a song. ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] [Jack-Devel] distros migrating to JACK2?
Adrian Knoth wrote: > On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 09:55:56PM +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote: > > > First, we can't have virtual packages for shared libraries in Debian, so > we cannot provide two different versions of libjack. > > i don't understand this. either i'm not understanding the point, or it sounds likea debian-specific limitation. i use fedora+ccrma, which has >>> It's debian-specific. >>> >> No, I'm using a Debian and Ubuntu, were it's easy to build dummy >> > > Feel free to enlighten me how to provide both, jackd1 and jackd2 in > Debian. > > I'm happy to please both camps, if possible. > Not both at the same time and of course I do have an outdated Debian install, but I guess Ubuntu is equivalent to Debian. Am I mistaken? And as I've written before, you need dummy packages or the other dirty solution is to keep the packages, but to delete their files and to over-install a self-build version. >> JACK2 doesn't disconnect clients. The disadvantage: There might be >> phasing between the left and the right channel. The advantage: Even if >> > > Could you elaborate on this? I don't understand it. > Yes. On my machine JACK1 did and maybe does disconnect clients, thus I'm running JACK2. Even if I don't have any messages by JACK2, e.g. xruns, there are troubles regarding to the quality of the sound, e.g. sometimes the left and right channel aren't in sync. I don't need any measurement, I'm able to hear this, but of course I did verify it by using a "Phasenkorellator", what ever it's called on English. I solved this by using high latency. I'm tired of discussing that. Believe me or don't believe it. >> There's only one good solution. Every user must have the choice between >> JACK1 and JACK2. >> > >http://linuxhaters.blogspot.com/2008/07/fallacy-of-choice.html > Ok, I just read the first paragraphs. It's unimportant to me. I'm a musician, I'm an audio engineer, I'm a user. I'm free to use my favourite distro, I'm free not to use Linux ... I Just like to report that there are some very experienced audio engineers who don't have the time to care about this issues. I do have the time :). Do what ever you like to do, think what ever you like to think and maybe the day will come, you'll climb down the ivory tower and meet some "accepted" audio engineers. Don't care about my opinion, just care about those people who were comfortable using JACK1 and who now are informed that for the future they have to deal with issues because their distro will ship with JACK2 and that there is no comfortable way to keep JACK1. IMO this can't be the right way. What ever the reason is to use JACK1 or JACK2, some people might be neurotic and because of that they just can't stand the index 1 or 2 ... What is the reason not to have a package for JACK1 and another for JACK2? What is the reason to separate jackd from libjack? At the moment I do have a free jazz phase of life, I don't care much about computers for music anyway. I'm sure there will be the time I like to do sequencer based pop music again, if so I anyway won't care much about JACK audio, but because of ALSA MIDI jitter. However that be, Linux audio IMO is completely independent from any rule because of Linux package management that makes sense for apps for the averaged Linux user. Nobody but audio folks do need JACK. Whatever I do report about any version of JACK is irrelevant, the only important issue at the moment is to think about making JACK1 and 2 available for every user. I'm sorry if I did miss the thread because of some notes. Be sure, we'll have the chance to regard those issues for another thread at another time. Perhaps we could write off-list on German regarding to some OT issues ... after the weekend ;). For me it's good news that distros do ship with JACK2 in the future! But I do sympathize with the people who like to use JACK1 and eventually the day will come distros decide to ship with JACK1 again. Users just can't relay to keep a stable system for their needs, while they stay at and upgrade their favourite distro. This is bad. 2 Cents Ralf ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] [Jack-Devel] distros migrating to JACK2?
On 17 April 2010 04:33, Paul Davis wrote: > Clearly, we can't dispose of that. But to what extent should the > future development path of JACK be determined by the limitations of > packaging systems? > > Does anyone really want to have to choose between JACK1 and JACK2 (and > tschak? perhaps) on a permanent basis? Does anyone want to step up and > make the hard decision about NetJACK1 or NetJACK2? Can that decision > even *be* made? Is that supposed to be my job? Man, am I glad to see that response. -- GPG/PGP ID: B42DDCAD ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] [Jack-Devel] distros migrating to JACK2?
On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 3:36 PM, Adrian Knoth wrote: > It's debian-specific. I don't know the details, but the build system > can't resolve dependencies on virtual shared libraries. Something like > that. That's pretty pathetic. But I guess there's not much to be done about that. > Card reservation. That's what users are most whining about. > > I already proposed something like jackd -d pulseaudio, so the non-pro > users can run their occational ardour session on top of PA without the > need to ever shut it down. Lennart and myself, had long discussions in Berlin last year, followed by actual work from Nedko to implement what Lennart had suggested (or something close to it). I'm not clear why distro packagers (and I'm speaking generally here - you've been exemplary in getting debian patches back to us) feel the need to ignore the design decisions of PulseAudio and JACK's designers. The problems with interactions between the two come from the fact that JACK is cross-platform and that therefore these kinds of mechanisms need to be added carefully in ways that don't cause issues for users on other platforms. This has led to the PA/JACK "cooperation" not developing as fast or as deep as we would like. One of the things that Lennart and I both agreed upon VERY emphatically was that when a user starts up JACK, our conclusion is that they *intend* for other audio routing to get out of the way, and thus PA would go along with it. Adding a pulseaudio backend totally inverts that assumption. > I also provided a proof-of-concept implementation, I've shown a working > ardour session on top of pulseaudio. Sure the latency is crap, but let's > be honest? Who's connecting his el-cheapo laptop card to a pro setup? > They buy themselves a Multiface, a FFADO-supported card or some other > pro gear. ;) if they are not connecting JACK to their el-cheapo laptop card, then the issue doesn't arise, does it? > Anyway, to have this documented: I came to #jack some weeks ago and > asked whether it's right to move to jackd2 or not. Nobody cared to give > an answer, yours was "That's a political question." as it is. so lets tackle this head on and without reservations. about 3 years ago, the JACK mini-summit in Berlin agreed that stephane's implementation of jack would become the future of JACK. i can't speak for everyone who was there, but for my part, there were a several reasons for this decision: * stephane's version already supported SMP * stephane's version already had support for "click free graph changes" * stephane's version was written in C++ and was more modular in its internal design than jack1 * stephane had become the most active developer/maintainer of JACK * stephane was likely to port his implementation to Windows (OK, we didn't actually know this at the time, but its turned out to be of some significance) * there was a lot of discussion about the "JACK Control API" and it seemed easier to imagine implementing this in the context of stephane's implementation Other's might have had some other reasons too, but I think those were mine. What has happened since then is that the active JACK developer community has shrunk down to about 3.25 people (Stephane, Torben Hohn, myself and occasionally Nedko). This is hardly suprising given the status of the project, but it does have some ramifications. And the ramifications are that Torben, who has recently been the most active for a while, feels uncomfortable working on the jack2 codebase and is dissatisfied with some of the design decisions in Jack2. Because of the very small size of the development community, this disagreement is essentially one of personal style, and the two of them have basically agreed to disagree while working to avoid doing anything to make the current situation worse. When you have basically 2 active developers and they don't agree on design and coding style and you have 2 functional implementations which each has its own "champion", its going to be hard to see a convergence. And, indeed, Torben has moved along by "forking" the jack1 code and implementing several of the most important features of jack2 (SMP support, click free graph changes). He hasn't publically announced this as a fork, and I'm not sure he really views it that way. For myself, I confess to being disappointed and puzzled by my own reaction to Stephane's implementation. I was a big supporter of a C++ implementation which I felt would bring some clarity to the rather tangled code in Jack1. I also felt very supportive of his goals for Jack2, not to mention his insanely hard word porting JACK to OS X (back when it was just jack1) and Windows and continually grappling with some of the crazier aspects of OS X integration as part of his work on JackOSX. I really did feel that it would be an improvement to switch to his implementation and that things would all get better as a result of this change (in the long run). However, th
Re: [LAD] [Jack-Devel] distros migrating to JACK2?
On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 09:55:56PM +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote: First, we can't have virtual packages for shared libraries in Debian, so we cannot provide two different versions of libjack. >>> i don't understand this. either i'm not understanding the point, or it >>> sounds likea debian-specific limitation. i use fedora+ccrma, which has >>> >> >> It's debian-specific. > No, I'm using a Debian and Ubuntu, were it's easy to build dummy Feel free to enlighten me how to provide both, jackd1 and jackd2 in Debian. I'm happy to please both camps, if possible. > JACK2 doesn't disconnect clients. The disadvantage: There might be > phasing between the left and the right channel. The advantage: Even if Could you elaborate on this? I don't understand it. > There's only one good solution. Every user must have the choice between > JACK1 and JACK2. http://linuxhaters.blogspot.com/2008/07/fallacy-of-choice.html -- mail: a...@thur.de http://adi.thur.de PGP/GPG: key via keyserver ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] [Jack-Devel] distros migrating to JACK2?
Adrian Knoth wrote: > On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 10:31:08AM -0400, Paul Davis wrote: > > >>> First, we can't have virtual packages for shared libraries in Debian, so >>> we cannot provide two different versions of libjack. >>> >> i don't understand this. either i'm not understanding the point, or it >> sounds likea debian-specific limitation. i use fedora+ccrma, which has >> > > It's debian-specific. No, I'm using a Debian and Ubuntu, were it's easy to build dummy packages and I'm using Suse too, were it's much dirtier. I'm doing this just to test a sequencer, my favourite distro is 64 Studio and they ship with the JACK I wish to use. > I don't know the details, but the build system > can't resolve dependencies on virtual shared libraries. Something like > that. > > If you see > >http://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/virtual-package-names-list.txt > > there's only a single virtual library package (libc-dev). > > There might be a way to handle it, but this would require us to put > everything into a single package, let's say jackd1.deb and jackd2.deb > both cater to the virtual package jackd. > > > >>> That said, we expect upstream to provide at least one feature-complete >>> jackd implementation. This means DBUS support (pulseaudio integration), >>> jack-session support, ladish support or whatever the feature should be, >>> e.g. SMP. >>> >> this is where things really fall apart because it presupposes >> agreement on the feature set, an agreement which as i think you know >> just isn't there. >> > > Card reservation. That's what users are most whining about. > > I already proposed something like jackd -d pulseaudio, so the non-pro > users can run their occational ardour session on top of PA without the > need to ever shut it down. > > For real pros, there's still the second unoccupied card. Or third. > > I also provided a proof-of-concept implementation, I've shown a working > ardour session on top of pulseaudio. Sure the latency is crap, but let's > be honest? Who's connecting his el-cheapo laptop card to a pro setup? > Nobody. I don't have money, but at least an Envy24 card around 50 EUR would make an on-board audio device obsolete. > They buy themselves a Multiface, a FFADO-supported card or some other > pro gear. ;) > > > Anyway, to have this documented: I came to #jack some weeks ago and > asked whether it's right to move to jackd2 or not. Nobody cared to give > an answer, yours was "That's a political question." > JACK2 doesn't disconnect clients. The disadvantage: There might be phasing between the left and the right channel. The advantage: Even if your hardware isn't good for usage with Linux audio, you are able to use it, but the quality isn't optimal. > Nobody said "tschack also has SMP and even performs better than jackd2", > nobody said "we're going to have jack-session support in jackd1", in > general, all communication from the jack team was "jackd2 is more or > less a drop-in replacement for jackd1", and the jackd2 camp added "we > have fancy SMP, we have fancy card reservation, we have glitchless > connections" and the lot. > > So to the outside, the impression was that jackd1 development got stuck > (somewhere around 0.116 or even before) and that jackd2 will be its > successor, the development branch, if you want. Renaming it from jackdmp > to jackd2 didn't help, sharing the same website, trac and svn didn't > help. > > > The jack team (if such a thing exists) never set its goals, whether > jackd2 is just a playground, an alternative or the successor. There is > no jackd1 roadmap, there was nobody saying "we're going to have SMP as > well". > > And now you wonder why everyone else was under the impression that the > world only needs one jackd implementation and picked the one with the > higher number? > > Sit together and agree on some goals. Don't have three incompatible > netjack implementations, five session management APIs and four different > jackd incarnations just for each corner case. I'm clearly exaggerating > here, but that's exactly what was missing in the past: a decent > statement to users about goals, features and how things relate to each > other. > > > > Cheerio > > PS: jackd2 needs to rename jack_rec to jackrec, jackd1 and jackd2 should > share the same manpages (maybe from the same svn branch), netjack > command line parameters need to be the same. That's a plea to both, > jackd1 and jackd2. Work together, forward your patches, read your > tickets. Make it less cumbersome for users, they are the ultimate > judges. > Users like me who reported their experiences were dissed other users got Apple or Microsoft and there only were the users that were comfortable. And now I'm comfortable, because I do need JACK2, but I'm empathetic with those who prefer JACK1, because I did suffer a lot when JACK1 was default, while I need to use JACK2. There's only one good solution. Every user must have the choice between JACK
Re: [LAD] [Jack-Devel] distros migrating to JACK2?
On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 3:36 PM, Adrian Knoth wrote: I'll happily deal with the rest of the email later, but I just want to note that I very strenously object to being lectured about how the JACK project should behave. There have been some serious errors in what has happened, when viewed from both the inside and the outside. But the reasons why these things have happened is not rooted in malice, or confusion, or lack of communication, and it doesn't help the situation at all to suggest that the solution is just "sit down and agree on some goals". lack of common goals is very far from the problem here. ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] distros migrating to JACK2?
Jörn Nettingsmeier wrote: > On 04/16/2010 08:06 AM, michael noble wrote: > >> hi folks, >> >> I just saw an interesting line over at opensuse.org ( >> http://news.opensuse.org/2010/04/14/opensuse-11-3-milestone-5-the-community-strikes-back/) >> regarding the installation of JACK2 as default in the upcoming opensuse 11.3 >> release. That wasn't the interesting part. This is: >> >> The JACK team is coordinating with openSUSE, Ubuntu, and Debian, among >> >>> others, to upgrade to jack 1.9.5 (JACK2) during the spring/summer release >>> cycle. >>> >>> >> This seems to imply that there is quite a large move happening across >> multiple distros, and that move is being coordinated with JACK developers. >> I'm not a dev and I'm not really comfortable commenting on dev issues, but >> is this really accurate? >> > > maybe i caused that confusion when i posted some jack-related bug to the > opensuse tracker a while ago, last fall or so. had a brief mail exchange > with the jack packet maintainer about how jack2 would eventually > supersede jack1 (at that time, it seemed pretty clear given that there > was no smp support for jack1 on the horizon), and that distros should > look into that issue eventually. i should have followed up on this, but > forgot about it. maybe some note ended up in a wishlist somewhere. > unless somebody else here has been in touch with the suse guys about it. > I was pissed, because I like to test a sequencer on my favourite distro (not Suse) and the distro the coder is using (Suse). And I was talking to a forum, where a Suse guy is a moderator and he was a former pen pal ... by all means ... I guess the Suse guys are ambivalent regarding to the JACK1 vs JACK2 issue. All the time there was and still is an All-Jack-Package vs Libjack-seperated-Jack issue and in addition JACK1 can't be parallel installed to JACK2 issue, not only for Suse. The only real issue is, that the user isn't able to choose, but has to do dirty solutions, e.g. by using dummy packages. To be honest, I don't care about this issue any more. I'm a noob, but because of kindly guys from Linux audio lists, I'm able to solve the issues regarding to JACK. Anyway, there's no need to keep this dusty situation. JUST, really JUST my 2 cents Ralf ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] [Jack-Devel] distros migrating to JACK2?
On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 10:31:08AM -0400, Paul Davis wrote: > > First, we can't have virtual packages for shared libraries in Debian, so > > we cannot provide two different versions of libjack. > i don't understand this. either i'm not understanding the point, or it > sounds likea debian-specific limitation. i use fedora+ccrma, which has It's debian-specific. I don't know the details, but the build system can't resolve dependencies on virtual shared libraries. Something like that. If you see http://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/virtual-package-names-list.txt there's only a single virtual library package (libc-dev). There might be a way to handle it, but this would require us to put everything into a single package, let's say jackd1.deb and jackd2.deb both cater to the virtual package jackd. > > That said, we expect upstream to provide at least one feature-complete > > jackd implementation. This means DBUS support (pulseaudio integration), > > jack-session support, ladish support or whatever the feature should be, > > e.g. SMP. > > this is where things really fall apart because it presupposes > agreement on the feature set, an agreement which as i think you know > just isn't there. Card reservation. That's what users are most whining about. I already proposed something like jackd -d pulseaudio, so the non-pro users can run their occational ardour session on top of PA without the need to ever shut it down. For real pros, there's still the second unoccupied card. Or third. I also provided a proof-of-concept implementation, I've shown a working ardour session on top of pulseaudio. Sure the latency is crap, but let's be honest? Who's connecting his el-cheapo laptop card to a pro setup? They buy themselves a Multiface, a FFADO-supported card or some other pro gear. ;) Anyway, to have this documented: I came to #jack some weeks ago and asked whether it's right to move to jackd2 or not. Nobody cared to give an answer, yours was "That's a political question." Nobody said "tschack also has SMP and even performs better than jackd2", nobody said "we're going to have jack-session support in jackd1", in general, all communication from the jack team was "jackd2 is more or less a drop-in replacement for jackd1", and the jackd2 camp added "we have fancy SMP, we have fancy card reservation, we have glitchless connections" and the lot. So to the outside, the impression was that jackd1 development got stuck (somewhere around 0.116 or even before) and that jackd2 will be its successor, the development branch, if you want. Renaming it from jackdmp to jackd2 didn't help, sharing the same website, trac and svn didn't help. The jack team (if such a thing exists) never set its goals, whether jackd2 is just a playground, an alternative or the successor. There is no jackd1 roadmap, there was nobody saying "we're going to have SMP as well". And now you wonder why everyone else was under the impression that the world only needs one jackd implementation and picked the one with the higher number? Sit together and agree on some goals. Don't have three incompatible netjack implementations, five session management APIs and four different jackd incarnations just for each corner case. I'm clearly exaggerating here, but that's exactly what was missing in the past: a decent statement to users about goals, features and how things relate to each other. Cheerio PS: jackd2 needs to rename jack_rec to jackrec, jackd1 and jackd2 should share the same manpages (maybe from the same svn branch), netjack command line parameters need to be the same. That's a plea to both, jackd1 and jackd2. Work together, forward your patches, read your tickets. Make it less cumbersome for users, they are the ultimate judges. -- mail: a...@thur.de http://adi.thur.de PGP/GPG: key via keyserver ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] [Jack-Devel] distros migrating to JACK2?
On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 2:06 AM, michael noble wrote: > This seems to imply that there is quite a large move happening across > multiple distros, and that move is being coordinated with JACK developers. it is not being coordinated JACK developers via any public mechanism that i am aware of. --p ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] distros migrating to JACK2?
On 04/16/2010 08:06 AM, michael noble wrote: > hi folks, > > I just saw an interesting line over at opensuse.org ( > http://news.opensuse.org/2010/04/14/opensuse-11-3-milestone-5-the-community-strikes-back/) > regarding the installation of JACK2 as default in the upcoming opensuse 11.3 > release. That wasn't the interesting part. This is: > > The JACK team is coordinating with openSUSE, Ubuntu, and Debian, among >> others, to upgrade to jack 1.9.5 (JACK2) during the spring/summer release >> cycle. >> > > This seems to imply that there is quite a large move happening across > multiple distros, and that move is being coordinated with JACK developers. > I'm not a dev and I'm not really comfortable commenting on dev issues, but > is this really accurate? maybe i caused that confusion when i posted some jack-related bug to the opensuse tracker a while ago, last fall or so. had a brief mail exchange with the jack packet maintainer about how jack2 would eventually supersede jack1 (at that time, it seemed pretty clear given that there was no smp support for jack1 on the horizon), and that distros should look into that issue eventually. i should have followed up on this, but forgot about it. maybe some note ended up in a wishlist somewhere. unless somebody else here has been in touch with the suse guys about it. ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] distros migrating to JACK2?
hermann wrote: > Am Freitag, den 16.04.2010, 12:46 -0600 schrieb Christopher Cherrett: > >> Original Message >> Subject: Re: [LAD] distros migrating to JACK2? >> From: Ralf Mardorf >> To: Christopher Cherrett >> Cc: linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org >> Date: 04/16/2010 12:36 PM >> >>> Christopher Cherrett wrote: >>> > Also note that there's no (easy) way back, we're entirely switching to > jackd2, that is, the user won't have the possibility to select jackd1 > instead. > > > > HTH > Glad I use a distro that gives me choice. Enjoy yours. >>> I guess you are able to imagine my question?! Please answer :D! >>> >> I really don't want the others to feel like they are trapped so I best >> not say anything :) >> >> > No reason to be shy, the no (easy) way back, Adrian mention, is a bit > like the normal Gentoo way. You always have this choice on debian > to. :-) > > > hermann Yep! Gentoo or Linux from the scratch ... hm ... eventually Arch? ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] distros migrating to JACK2?
Christopher Cherrett wrote: > Original Message > Subject: Re: [LAD] distros migrating to JACK2? > From: Ralf Mardorf > To: Christopher Cherrett > Cc: linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org > Date: 04/16/2010 12:36 PM > >> Christopher Cherrett wrote: >> Also note that there's no (easy) way back, we're entirely switching to jackd2, that is, the user won't have the possibility to select jackd1 instead. HTH >>> Glad I use a distro that gives me choice. Enjoy yours. >>> >> I guess you are able to imagine my question?! Please answer :D! >> > I really don't want the others to feel like they are trapped so I best > not say anything :) > Hahaha :D it's impossible that this thread will cause a flame war any more, it's a running gag. Everybody is unable to feel hate, it's just fun. Please *beg*, just write the name of the distro and send it off-list :). I'm sure that everybody on this list knows how to solve the troubles, because of the chosen distro :). TIA Ralf ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] distros migrating to JACK2?
Am Freitag, den 16.04.2010, 12:46 -0600 schrieb Christopher Cherrett: > Original Message > Subject: Re: [LAD] distros migrating to JACK2? > From: Ralf Mardorf > To: Christopher Cherrett > Cc: linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org > Date: 04/16/2010 12:36 PM > > Christopher Cherrett wrote: > >>> Also note that there's no (easy) way back, we're entirely switching to > >>> jackd2, that is, the user won't have the possibility to select jackd1 > >>> instead. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> HTH > >> Glad I use a distro that gives me choice. Enjoy yours. > > > > I guess you are able to imagine my question?! Please answer :D! > I really don't want the others to feel like they are trapped so I best > not say anything :) > No reason to be shy, the no (easy) way back, Adrian mention, is a bit like the normal Gentoo way. You always have this choice on debian to. :-) hermann ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] distros migrating to JACK2?
Original Message Subject: Re: [LAD] distros migrating to JACK2? From: Ralf Mardorf To: Christopher Cherrett Cc: linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org Date: 04/16/2010 12:36 PM > Christopher Cherrett wrote: >>> Also note that there's no (easy) way back, we're entirely switching to >>> jackd2, that is, the user won't have the possibility to select jackd1 >>> instead. >>> >>> >>> >>> HTH >> Glad I use a distro that gives me choice. Enjoy yours. > > I guess you are able to imagine my question?! Please answer :D! I really don't want the others to feel like they are trapped so I best not say anything :) -- Christopher Cherrett ccherr...@openoctave.org http://www.openoctave.org ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] distros migrating to JACK2?
Christopher Cherrett wrote: >> Also note that there's no (easy) way back, we're entirely switching to >> jackd2, that is, the user won't have the possibility to select jackd1 >> instead. >> >> >> >> HTH >> >> > Glad I use a distro that gives me choice. Enjoy yours. > I guess you are able to imagine my question?! Please answer :D! ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] distros migrating to JACK2?
> Also note that there's no (easy) way back, we're entirely switching to > jackd2, that is, the user won't have the possibility to select jackd1 > instead. > > > > HTH > Glad I use a distro that gives me choice. Enjoy yours. -- Christopher Cherrett ccherr...@openoctave.org http://www.openoctave.org ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] distros migrating to JACK2?
Ralf Mardorf wrote: > Ralf Mardorf wrote: >> Arnold Krille wrote: >>> On Friday 16 April 2010 19:23:33 Ralf Mardorf wrote: >>> hermann wrote: > I hope, when debian switch to jack2, they will make it in one packet > (maximal a second for the dev files), that's what could make it > easer to > switch the version for people how like to switch. > Full ACK, OTOH let's put our hands on our hearts ... Who is using Linux audio and doesn't compile one or two things depending to JACK ;)? I vote for one package for all! >>> >>> Hopefully they will think again before following this. >>> >>> Why should all users get the files on their disks that are needed >>> only for debugging and developing? >>> Disk-space might not be an issue with your >>> state-of-the-art-all-inclusive machine, but not everyone has such a >>> thing. Some have older machines still running with <20GB disk, some >>> have netbooks with only small (but fast!) solid state disks. >>> Now why again should they install gigs of headers and >>> debugging-symbols when they just need the libs and apps to run jack >>> and assorted? >>> >>> Arnold >>> >> >> Arnold, I don't have much money. 1. A hard disk isn't expensive. 2. >> For e.g. 64 Studio 3.0-beta3 amd64 libjack0.100.0-dev does need 61.4 >> kb and not gigs. I'm just talking about JACK. 3. Who does use Linux >> audio and doesn't need libjack-dev? 4. Who does produce music on a >> 20GB hard disk? C'mon ;)! >> >> IMHO it would be good once and for all to clear all issues because of >> packages for JACK and IMHO the best way seems to be to have >> everything that is JACK in one package. >> >> :) >> Ralf > > Pardon, maybe the package is 61.4 kb and maybe the extracted files do > need a little bit more, lets say 1 MB ;), if so, use another wallpaper > to save this 1 MB ;). PS: "Major distros" does include a lot of stuff that isn't needed by everyone and that's absolutely okay, e.g. pulseaudio and DBUS, games, office suites etc. ... ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] distros migrating to JACK2?
Ralf Mardorf wrote: > Arnold Krille wrote: >> On Friday 16 April 2010 19:23:33 Ralf Mardorf wrote: >> >>> hermann wrote: >>> I hope, when debian switch to jack2, they will make it in one packet (maximal a second for the dev files), that's what could make it easer to switch the version for people how like to switch. >>> Full ACK, OTOH let's put our hands on our hearts ... Who is using Linux >>> audio and doesn't compile one or two things depending to JACK ;)? I >>> vote >>> for one package for all! >>> >> >> Hopefully they will think again before following this. >> >> Why should all users get the files on their disks that are needed >> only for debugging and developing? >> Disk-space might not be an issue with your >> state-of-the-art-all-inclusive machine, but not everyone has such a >> thing. Some have older machines still running with <20GB disk, some >> have netbooks with only small (but fast!) solid state disks. >> Now why again should they install gigs of headers and >> debugging-symbols when they just need the libs and apps to run jack >> and assorted? >> >> Arnold >> > > Arnold, I don't have much money. 1. A hard disk isn't expensive. 2. > For e.g. 64 Studio 3.0-beta3 amd64 libjack0.100.0-dev does need 61.4 > kb and not gigs. I'm just talking about JACK. 3. Who does use Linux > audio and doesn't need libjack-dev? 4. Who does produce music on a > 20GB hard disk? C'mon ;)! > > IMHO it would be good once and for all to clear all issues because of > packages for JACK and IMHO the best way seems to be to have everything > that is JACK in one package. > > :) > Ralf Pardon, maybe the package is 61.4 kb and maybe the extracted files do need a little bit more, lets say 1 MB ;), if so, use another wallpaper to save this 1 MB ;). ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] distros migrating to JACK2?
Arnold Krille wrote: > On Friday 16 April 2010 19:23:33 Ralf Mardorf wrote: > >> hermann wrote: >> >>> I hope, when debian switch to jack2, they will make it in one packet >>> (maximal a second for the dev files), that's what could make it easer to >>> switch the version for people how like to switch. >>> >> Full ACK, OTOH let's put our hands on our hearts ... Who is using Linux >> audio and doesn't compile one or two things depending to JACK ;)? I vote >> for one package for all! >> > > Hopefully they will think again before following this. > > Why should all users get the files on their disks that are needed only for > debugging and developing? > Disk-space might not be an issue with your state-of-the-art-all-inclusive > machine, but not everyone has such a thing. Some have older machines still > running with <20GB disk, some have netbooks with only small (but fast!) solid > state disks. > Now why again should they install gigs of headers and debugging-symbols when > they just need the libs and apps to run jack and assorted? > > Arnold > Arnold, I don't have much money. 1. A hard disk isn't expensive. 2. For e.g. 64 Studio 3.0-beta3 amd64 libjack0.100.0-dev does need 61.4 kb and not gigs. I'm just talking about JACK. 3. Who does use Linux audio and doesn't need libjack-dev? 4. Who does produce music on a 20GB hard disk? C'mon ;)! IMHO it would be good once and for all to clear all issues because of packages for JACK and IMHO the best way seems to be to have everything that is JACK in one package. :) Ralf ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] distros migrating to JACK2?
Am Freitag, den 16.04.2010, 19:38 +0200 schrieb Arnold Krille: > On Friday 16 April 2010 19:23:33 Ralf Mardorf wrote: > > hermann wrote: > > > I hope, when debian switch to jack2, they will make it in one packet > > > (maximal a second for the dev files), that's what could make it easer to > > > switch the version for people how like to switch. > > Full ACK, OTOH let's put our hands on our hearts ... Who is using Linux > > audio and doesn't compile one or two things depending to JACK ;)? I vote > > for one package for all! > > Hopefully they will think again before following this. > > Why should all users get the files on their disks that are needed only for > debugging and developing? > Disk-space might not be an issue with your state-of-the-art-all-inclusive > machine, but not everyone has such a thing. Some have older machines still > running with <20GB disk, some have netbooks with only small (but fast!) solid > state disks. > Now why again should they install gigs of headers and debugging-symbols when > they just need the libs and apps to run jack and assorted? > > Arnold Then we have 2 packages for each (jackd, jackd-dev), that's fine, but why the hell we need a separate package for jackd and libjack ? I never hear about a use-case of jackd without libjack or opposite ? hermann ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] distros migrating to JACK2?
On Friday 16 April 2010 19:23:33 Ralf Mardorf wrote: > hermann wrote: > > I hope, when debian switch to jack2, they will make it in one packet > > (maximal a second for the dev files), that's what could make it easer to > > switch the version for people how like to switch. > Full ACK, OTOH let's put our hands on our hearts ... Who is using Linux > audio and doesn't compile one or two things depending to JACK ;)? I vote > for one package for all! Hopefully they will think again before following this. Why should all users get the files on their disks that are needed only for debugging and developing? Disk-space might not be an issue with your state-of-the-art-all-inclusive machine, but not everyone has such a thing. Some have older machines still running with <20GB disk, some have netbooks with only small (but fast!) solid state disks. Now why again should they install gigs of headers and debugging-symbols when they just need the libs and apps to run jack and assorted? Arnold signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] [Jack-Devel] distros migrating to JACK2?
On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 10:15 AM, Adrian Knoth wrote: > First, we can't have virtual packages for shared libraries in Debian, so > we cannot provide two different versions of libjack. i don't understand this. either i'm not understanding the point, or it sounds likea debian-specific limitation. i use fedora+ccrma, which has jack2. i removed jack2 (--nodeps) and overlaid jack1. all fedora packages that relate to JACK continue to work normally. am i not understanding what you mean? > Second, we don't want application A require jack1 and application B > jackd2, so you can't run both applications. As this would be the case if > you have different jackd versions with different feature sets, we > entirely counter this by only packaging one version. this seems entirely reasonable. > This is also beneficial wrt supporting. We don't want different problems > with different versions, we don't want writing patches twice, once for > jackd1 and a second time for jackd2. this is understandable, if less reasonable. at this point in time, the bugs in jack2 are entirely different bugs from the bugs in jack1. the existence of a bug in either version doesn't predict the status of that functionality in the other. > Foremost, we don't want users to stumble because they're using "the > wrong" version. To us, jackd has nothing to do with choice, it's simply > an inter-application framework for routing audio/midi data, and no user > should ever need to care about this. (Do you care about libreadline? It > simply has to be there) this seems sort of right, although only as long as you use "jack" to refer to the library+server and not any of the front end control apps,patchers etc. > That said, we expect upstream to provide at least one feature-complete > jackd implementation. This means DBUS support (pulseaudio integration), > jack-session support, ladish support or whatever the feature should be, > e.g. SMP. this is where things really fall apart because it presupposes agreement on the feature set, an agreement which as i think you know just isn't there. > Since jack-session is rather new and the decision was made prior to > this, since CCRMA and Gentoo's pro-audio overlay all use jackd2, we > chose jackd2 to be this feature-complete jackd implementation. > Consider this as a chance to avoid even more divergence among jackd > implementations. I understand the sentiment, but I am not sure that this is likely to have this result. ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] distros migrating to JACK2?
hermann wrote: > Am Freitag, den 16.04.2010, 18:52 +0200 schrieb Ralf Mardorf: > >> torbenh wrote: >> Also note that there's no (easy) way back, we're entirely switching to jackd2, that is, the user won't have the possibility to select jackd1 instead. >>> great... many thanks. :((( >>> >>> >> For me this will be an advantage, because now I need to build several >> dummy packages (or any other dirty solution) for jack, libjack, >> development to avoid inconsistencies when I'm using JACK2 and by the >> way, even if I would use JACK1, but instead of the distro's version the >> current self compiled version, I need to do that, because auto-generated >> by checkinstall there will be one package for jack, libjack and >> development ;). >> >> IMO the user should have the choice between JACK1 and JACK2 and this >> separated packages should become one package. JACK isn't an application >> that's needed by the averaged Linux user, so it shouldn't be to much >> work to keep a distro stable for both versions of JACK and in addition >> there's no need to take care about rules that don't allow to have jack >> and libjack in one package. >> >> 2 cents, >> Ralf >> > > I hope, when debian switch to jack2, they will make it in one packet > (maximal a second for the dev files), that's what could make it easer to > switch the version for people how like to switch. > > + 2 cents > > hermann > Full ACK, OTOH let's put our hands on our hearts ... Who is using Linux audio and doesn't compile one or two things depending to JACK ;)? I vote for one package for all! + 2 cents Ralf ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] distros migrating to JACK2?
torbenh wrote: > On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 11:21:12AM +0200, Adrian Knoth wrote: > >> On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 03:06:28PM +0900, michael noble wrote: >> >> >>> hi folks, >>> >> Hi! >> >> >>> Are any interested or invested parties willing to provide some clarification >>> on this? I know distros are fully welcome to package whatever they wish. I >>> also am pretty sure that whatever happens will happen regardless of my >>> opinion on the matter. There have, however, been some colorful exchanges >>> between packagers and devs regarding JACK in the past so in the interest of >>> transparency and openness I was hoping involved parties might have something >>> to say about this. >>> >> Here's a good summary: >> >>http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2010-April/134723.html >> >> >> By now, Debian, Ubuntu and OpenSuse are already in, Fedora is still >> undecided. >> >> So yes, it's true, I've asked all the major distributions to switch to >> jackd2, so users have the same feature set no matter which distro they >> use. >> >> Also note that there's no (easy) way back, we're entirely switching to >> jackd2, that is, the user won't have the possibility to select jackd1 >> instead. >> > > great... many thanks. :((( > Btw. for e.g. Suse 64-bit there is jack and libjack etc. for 32-bit and 64-bit. I can't see any reason to need this. Why not having one package for all JACK1 and another for all JACK2 files, just fitting to one architecture? Why do the packages for applications depending to JACK need to make precise distinctions between JACK1 and JACK2? At the end they are ok with any version of JACK, but the user has to manage this by dirty solutions. Who needs JACK, but audio guys? It's similar for other distros. FWIW I'm a 64 Studio user. ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] distros migrating to JACK2?
Am Freitag, den 16.04.2010, 18:52 +0200 schrieb Ralf Mardorf: > torbenh wrote: > >> Also note that there's no (easy) way back, we're entirely switching to > >> jackd2, that is, the user won't have the possibility to select jackd1 > >> instead. > >> > > > > great... many thanks. :((( > > > > For me this will be an advantage, because now I need to build several > dummy packages (or any other dirty solution) for jack, libjack, > development to avoid inconsistencies when I'm using JACK2 and by the > way, even if I would use JACK1, but instead of the distro's version the > current self compiled version, I need to do that, because auto-generated > by checkinstall there will be one package for jack, libjack and > development ;). > > IMO the user should have the choice between JACK1 and JACK2 and this > separated packages should become one package. JACK isn't an application > that's needed by the averaged Linux user, so it shouldn't be to much > work to keep a distro stable for both versions of JACK and in addition > there's no need to take care about rules that don't allow to have jack > and libjack in one package. > > 2 cents, > Ralf I hope, when debian switch to jack2, they will make it in one packet (maximal a second for the dev files), that's what could make it easer to switch the version for people how like to switch. + 2 cents hermann ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] distros migrating to JACK2?
torbenh wrote: >> Also note that there's no (easy) way back, we're entirely switching to >> jackd2, that is, the user won't have the possibility to select jackd1 >> instead. >> > > great... many thanks. :((( > For me this will be an advantage, because now I need to build several dummy packages (or any other dirty solution) for jack, libjack, development to avoid inconsistencies when I'm using JACK2 and by the way, even if I would use JACK1, but instead of the distro's version the current self compiled version, I need to do that, because auto-generated by checkinstall there will be one package for jack, libjack and development ;). IMO the user should have the choice between JACK1 and JACK2 and this separated packages should become one package. JACK isn't an application that's needed by the averaged Linux user, so it shouldn't be to much work to keep a distro stable for both versions of JACK and in addition there's no need to take care about rules that don't allow to have jack and libjack in one package. 2 cents, Ralf ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] distros migrating to JACK2?
On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 11:32:16AM +0200, Philipp wrote: > > Also note that there's no (easy) way back, we're entirely switching to > > jackd2, that is, the user won't have the possibility to select jackd1 > > instead. > May I ask for the reasoning behind this? There are many reasons, some technical, some organizational, some conceptional. First, we can't have virtual packages for shared libraries in Debian, so we cannot provide two different versions of libjack. Second, we don't want application A require jack1 and application B jackd2, so you can't run both applications. As this would be the case if you have different jackd versions with different feature sets, we entirely counter this by only packaging one version. This is also beneficial wrt supporting. We don't want different problems with different versions, we don't want writing patches twice, once for jackd1 and a second time for jackd2. Foremost, we don't want users to stumble because they're using "the wrong" version. To us, jackd has nothing to do with choice, it's simply an inter-application framework for routing audio/midi data, and no user should ever need to care about this. (Do you care about libreadline? It simply has to be there) That said, we expect upstream to provide at least one feature-complete jackd implementation. This means DBUS support (pulseaudio integration), jack-session support, ladish support or whatever the feature should be, e.g. SMP. Since jack-session is rather new and the decision was made prior to this, since CCRMA and Gentoo's pro-audio overlay all use jackd2, we chose jackd2 to be this feature-complete jackd implementation. If you want jack-session to fly, you need to have it in jackd2. It's that simple. ;) Consider this as a chance to avoid even more divergence among jackd implementations. HTH -- mail: a...@thur.de http://adi.thur.de PGP/GPG: key via keyserver ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] distros migrating to JACK2?
On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 11:21:12AM +0200, Adrian Knoth wrote: > On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 03:06:28PM +0900, michael noble wrote: > > > hi folks, > > Hi! > > > Are any interested or invested parties willing to provide some clarification > > on this? I know distros are fully welcome to package whatever they wish. I > > also am pretty sure that whatever happens will happen regardless of my > > opinion on the matter. There have, however, been some colorful exchanges > > between packagers and devs regarding JACK in the past so in the interest of > > transparency and openness I was hoping involved parties might have something > > to say about this. > > Here's a good summary: > >http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2010-April/134723.html > > > By now, Debian, Ubuntu and OpenSuse are already in, Fedora is still > undecided. > > So yes, it's true, I've asked all the major distributions to switch to > jackd2, so users have the same feature set no matter which distro they > use. > > Also note that there's no (easy) way back, we're entirely switching to > jackd2, that is, the user won't have the possibility to select jackd1 > instead. great... many thanks. :((( > > > > HTH > > -- > mail: a...@thur.dehttp://adi.thur.de PGP/GPG: key via keyserver > ___ > Linux-audio-dev mailing list > Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org > http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev -- torben Hohn ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] ANN: Upcoming L2Ork spring event and Midwest tour
I wish you success :)! ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] distros migrating to JACK2?
Excerpts from Adrian Knoth's message of 2010-04-16 11:21:12 +0200: > On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 03:06:28PM +0900, michael noble wrote: > > > hi folks, > > Hi! > > > Are any interested or invested parties willing to provide some clarification > > on this? I know distros are fully welcome to package whatever they wish. I > > also am pretty sure that whatever happens will happen regardless of my > > opinion on the matter. There have, however, been some colorful exchanges > > between packagers and devs regarding JACK in the past so in the interest of > > transparency and openness I was hoping involved parties might have something > > to say about this. > > Here's a good summary: > >http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2010-April/134723.html > > > By now, Debian, Ubuntu and OpenSuse are already in, Fedora is still > undecided. > > So yes, it's true, I've asked all the major distributions to switch to > jackd2, so users have the same feature set no matter which distro they > use. > > Also note that there's no (easy) way back, we're entirely switching to > jackd2, that is, the user won't have the possibility to select jackd1 > instead. > > > > HTH May I ask for the reasoning behind this? Personally I don't see jack2 as a successor to jack1. Regards, Philipp ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] distros migrating to JACK2?
On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 03:06:28PM +0900, michael noble wrote: > hi folks, Hi! > Are any interested or invested parties willing to provide some clarification > on this? I know distros are fully welcome to package whatever they wish. I > also am pretty sure that whatever happens will happen regardless of my > opinion on the matter. There have, however, been some colorful exchanges > between packagers and devs regarding JACK in the past so in the interest of > transparency and openness I was hoping involved parties might have something > to say about this. Here's a good summary: http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2010-April/134723.html By now, Debian, Ubuntu and OpenSuse are already in, Fedora is still undecided. So yes, it's true, I've asked all the major distributions to switch to jackd2, so users have the same feature set no matter which distro they use. Also note that there's no (easy) way back, we're entirely switching to jackd2, that is, the user won't have the possibility to select jackd1 instead. HTH -- mail: a...@thur.de http://adi.thur.de PGP/GPG: key via keyserver ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Re: [LAD] ANNA ROBERTS
On Fri, 16 Apr 2010 01:25:27 -0700, Louis Gorenfeld wrote: > http://www.nocerinachannel.it/home.php > ___ > Linux-audio-dev mailing list > Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org > http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev I have put the moderation bit on the user and sent an email to see if he is a legitimate user or a spammer that actually subscribed to the list... -- Marc-Olivier Barre XMPP ID : ma...@marcochapeau.org www.MarcOChapeau.org ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
[LAD] ANNA ROBERTS
http://www.nocerinachannel.it/home.php ___ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
