Re: [LAD] distros migrating to JACK2?
Excerpts from Arnold Krille's message of 2010-04-18 19:42:00 +0200: > On Sunday 18 April 2010 00:14:31 Philipp wrote: > > Excerpts from Arnold Krille's message of 2010-04-17 23:15:11 +0200: > > >... > > > That way your favourite > > > music player can have an output plugin that looks for jack and if that is > > > not running, looks for pulse and finally choose direct alsa for > > > playback... > > I don't see why jack needs to be splitted for this, it works just fine > > with jack installed in a single package. Example Audioplayer: Aqualung > > Because libjack (the same as libpulse) will start jackd if its not running. > Unless that server-package is not installed:-) That is why these two should > be > separate. Sometimes you really don't want to run jack. But the > developers/packagers of that music-player don't have a separate plugin and > package for the jack-output. So you need the jack-lib to install the player. > But you don't need the jack server to run that music player... Jack isn't started automatically in every case, it depends on the app, and afaik very few do it. So you're effectively only reducing the size of the packages the user has to install as dependencies of the music player. I do package myself a little bit, and the package management system is probably a few orders of magnitude simpler than apt, and so is the packaging, but the basic issues are the same everywhere. You always have to find the 'right' balance between features and dependencies. Simplified, users want every feature but no dependency. There's no way to do it, so you have to find a balance. The debian-like system compiles the package with every feature but the user only needs to install half the dependencies, and some more if he wants to use the features. The gentoo-/arch-like system allows the user to easily recompile and install the package with whatever features he wants. It's maybe a bit simplified, but that's how I see it. I don't know how much trouble the absence of part of the program causes. In my experience it can be quite bad, but there are some notable cases where the developers did a good job. Example: moc A music player that can be compiled with wavpack support, but if wavpack is missing at runtime there's no problem, you simply can't load wavpack files into it. I wish more programs would work like that. > > In general it seems to be a matter of taste, and while debian folk sees > > benefits in it others simply don't think it's worth the trouble. > > Hm, which distribution apart from gentoo do you know that has jacks libs and > server/apps in one package? Arch Linux, the one I'm using these days. > > IMHO it simply shouldn't get in the way. > > Thats exactly the not-so-simple point: Some developers make it very hard for > users and packagers... > > Have fun, > > Arnold My motto is: "Work with upstream." So far my experience was great in that respect. Most developers are happy about feedback and willing to help resolve packaging issues. On a sidenote, I don't want to start a flamewar and discuss the merits of different distributions. The differences are huge in some areas and all have their benefits. While I switched from a debian derived distro (ubuntu) and am very happy with the benefits Arch Linux offers I really respect debian for the idealism and the broad spectrum the project tries to cover. 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 19 April 2010 01:42, Arnold Krille wrote: > Hm, which distribution apart from gentoo do you know that has jacks libs and > server/apps in one package? http://www.archlinux.org/packages/extra/i686/jack/files/ We do not believe in the extra work of splitting package files for no added benefit. One package is everything upstream releases, i.e software -> package -> user. Simple. -- 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] distros migrating to JACK2?
On Sunday 18 April 2010 00:14:31 Philipp wrote: > Excerpts from Arnold Krille's message of 2010-04-17 23:15:11 +0200: > >... > > That way your favourite > > music player can have an output plugin that looks for jack and if that is > > not running, looks for pulse and finally choose direct alsa for > > playback... > I don't see why jack needs to be splitted for this, it works just fine > with jack installed in a single package. Example Audioplayer: Aqualung Because libjack (the same as libpulse) will start jackd if its not running. Unless that server-package is not installed:-) That is why these two should be separate. Sometimes you really don't want to run jack. But the developers/packagers of that music-player don't have a separate plugin and package for the jack-output. So you need the jack-lib to install the player. But you don't need the jack server to run that music player... > In general it seems to be a matter of taste, and while debian folk sees > benefits in it others simply don't think it's worth the trouble. Hm, which distribution apart from gentoo do you know that has jacks libs and server/apps in one package? > IMHO it simply shouldn't get in the way. Thats exactly the not-so-simple point: Some developers make it very hard for users and packagers... Have fun, 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] distros migrating to JACK2?
Ups, it go's offline wrong button. :-) I don't understand all this trouble, we have the choice, no mater witch distro we use and no mater witch version the distro use as default, we could switch to the jack version we wont. That's what brings us in this situation. Sometimes it need more or less work. The question here is how it could make a bit easier for non advanced users. But mostly, non advanced users didn't wont to change, may be they wont to test it out, how the different is, because there is a choice. On other OS's you didn't have this choice, you take what you can get and be happy with that. So this is on of the advance of linux, and one of the drawback. Try to change that, is the same like go in the jungle and tell the tiger's to be vegetarian now. Anyway, come back to the debian related question, I see a chance to rework the jackd package to make the structure a bit clearer and get rid of the old multi packages for jack, switch to a binary and a dev package. Chose the jackversion you wont, and let the switch to a other version as a task to the advanced users. hermann Am Sonntag, den 18.04.2010, 12:27 +0200 schrieb Ralf Mardorf: > hermann wrote: [snip ... because it's off-list, but I guess the thread > shouldn't be closed, pardon] > > There are several reasons why people like to switch between versions of > JACK and it isn't that easy to do. Not every musician has knowledge > about technique. Comparison to other OS are irrelevant. > > So for Debian there are good news, but there are other distros and it's > significant for Linux, that if someone is willing to solve what belongs > to him, than the thread should be closed. But how e.g. will the Suse > package managers handle this? > > Users ask to have the choice. I don't need the choice, I only need > JACK2, so from now on I'll be quiet. Anyway, it's not good, if clueless > users don't have the choice. > > 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?
hermann wrote: [snip ... because it's off-list, but I guess the thread shouldn't be closed, pardon] There are several reasons why people like to switch between versions of JACK and it isn't that easy to do. Not every musician has knowledge about technique. Comparison to other OS are irrelevant. So for Debian there are good news, but there are other distros and it's significant for Linux, that if someone is willing to solve what belongs to him, than the thread should be closed. But how e.g. will the Suse package managers handle this? Users ask to have the choice. I don't need the choice, I only need JACK2, so from now on I'll be quiet. Anyway, it's not good, if clueless users don't have the choice. 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?
Adrian Knoth wrote: > On Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 11:44:54AM +0200, Philipp wrote: > > >> What was the topic again? >> > > We're working on it. > > "it" as in "different jack implementations in Debian". Historically, we > only had jackd1, but I guess we'll at least see jackd1 and jackd2, > perhaps also tschack, and the user will be able to choose whatever he > likes. Precompiled, officially supported, easy and working out of the > box. > :) > Once the technical discussion has settled, it will take us some weeks to > actually implement it, but I'm confident that it will happen. > > I think we can close the thread now, every argument is already on the > table. It's now all about the details, but that's our business. And > we're glad to cooperate with Torben and Gabriel to make it right. ;) > > > Cheerio > Thanks, 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 Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 11:44:54AM +0200, Philipp wrote: > What was the topic again? We're working on it. "it" as in "different jack implementations in Debian". Historically, we only had jackd1, but I guess we'll at least see jackd1 and jackd2, perhaps also tschack, and the user will be able to choose whatever he likes. Precompiled, officially supported, easy and working out of the box. Once the technical discussion has settled, it will take us some weeks to actually implement it, but I'm confident that it will happen. I think we can close the thread now, every argument is already on the table. It's now all about the details, but that's our business. And we're glad to cooperate with Torben and Gabriel to make it right. ;) Cheerio -- 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?
Philipp wrote: > What was the topic again? :D I've sent what I guess the topic should be 3 minutes before you sent your mail. Again. IMO the topic should be the free choice between JACK1 and JACK2. It's unimportant if there is one package or if there are 5 packages for each JACK. JACK3, DBUS at the moment are also less important. ___ 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 2010-04-18 11:25:57 +0200: > On Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 11:09:53AM +0200, Philipp wrote: > > > I don't really know, nor care, about debian specific packaging stuff. > > What I know is that it has a record of being broken. > > Stop that FUD. Ok, a lot was broken until last year, but I fixed > everything and worked closely together with upstreams. > > If you have something that needs improvement, simply tell me. > > In general, calling the pro-audio stack in Debian to be broken is barely > justifiable. Hint: Torben uses Debian unstable. I know. > Of course, I cannot be held responsible for our spin-offs like Ubuntu in > all its incarnations (studio, xubuntu, kubuntu, whatever). When I refer to debian I usually mean those spinoffs as well. > > Here's an article where some of the technicalities are discussed in the > > comments: http://ardour.org/node/2543 > > Old stuff. Check the expiry date of your truths. Reality changes over > time. It's not expired as long as lots of people use the broken versions. Good if you managed to fix it. What was the topic again? ___ 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?
Adrian Knoth wrote: > On Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 11:09:53AM +0200, Philipp wrote: > > >> I don't really know, nor care, about debian specific packaging stuff. >> What I know is that it has a record of being broken. >> > > Stop that FUD. Ok, a lot was broken until last year, but I fixed > everything and worked closely together with upstreams. > > If you have something that needs improvement, simply tell me. > > In general, calling the pro-audio stack in Debian to be broken is barely > justifiable. Hint: Torben uses Debian unstable. > > Of course, I cannot be held responsible for our spin-offs like Ubuntu in > all its incarnations (studio, xubuntu, kubuntu, whatever). > > >> Here's an article where some of the technicalities are discussed in the >> comments: http://ardour.org/node/2543 >> > > Old stuff. Check the expiry date of your truths. Reality changes over > time. > What's broken for which distro is half OT, IMO the topic should be the free choice of JACK1 and JACK2. At the end it's not important if there is one package or if there are 5 packages for each JACK. JACK3, DBUS at the moment are also less important. ___ 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?
Philipp wrote: > Excerpts from Ralf Mardorf's message of 2010-04-18 11:01:41 +0200: > >> Ok Marije, Arnold, Philipp :) >> >> programs don't depend to the development files, so I perceive that they >> should be separated. >> Today for 64 Studio 3.0-beta3 = Ubuntu Hardy we do have a package jackd >> including /usr/bin/jackd. >> A package jackdbus including nothing but copyright, TODO etc.. >> A package libjack0, including /usr/lib/libjack.so. >> A package libjack0.100.0-0, including nothing but copyright, TODO etc.. >> A package libjack-dev, including the headers. >> A package libjack0.100.0-dev, including nothing but copyright, TODO etc.. >> And than there are the libjackserver packages, IIRC there aren't such >> packages for Karmic. >> >> Again, I'm using JACK2, I prefer JACK2, I won't have any issues when >> JACK2 will become default for all distros, but other people might like >> to keep JACK1. Because at the moment JACK1 is default for some distros, >> I know the troubles, when I changed to JACK2 or when I just compiled the >> current version of JACK1, like I did for Karmic, fortunately my >> favourite distro already ships with JACK2. >> >> For Karmic I've got 5 dummy packages and one package that really is needed. >> >> $ ls /media/disk/usr/src/dummy-packages >> jackd_0.118.0_all.deb libjack0.100.0-0_0.118.0_all.deb >> libjack-dev_0.118.0_all.deb >> libjack0_0.118.0_all.deb libjack0.100.0-dev_0.118.0_all.deb >> $ ls /media/disk/usr/src/jack-audio-connection-kit-0.118.0/*.deb >> /media/disk/usr/src/jack-audio-connection-kit-0.118.0/jack-audio-connection-kit_0.118.0-1_i386.deb >> >> For Suse I don't know how to build dummy packages, first I ignored the >> broken dependencies when doing upgrades, then I have had enough and >> installed the regular packages, deleted all files and build the version >> of JACK I wish to have. >> >> I don't understand the reason why this can't be changed. >> >> 2 Cents, >> Ralf >> > > I don't really know, nor care, about debian specific packaging stuff. > What I know is that it has a record of being broken. > Here's an article where some of the technicalities are discussed in the > comments: http://ardour.org/node/2543 > > Philipp I could add a list of broken packages for [censorship to avoid a flame war]. That's why I guess every Linux audio user running a distro that isn't a pure audio distro and sometimes even for pure audio distros needs to compile apps depending to the JACK headers. We only need one package for each JACK named jackx-audio-connection-kit and at best a second one called jackx-audio-connection-kit-dev, x is for 1, 2, 3, dbus or what ever, for the dependencies there should be added that JACK1 conflicts with JACK2 etc., thus the averaged user is able to choose the version of JACK he wishes to have. 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 Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 11:09:53AM +0200, Philipp wrote: > I don't really know, nor care, about debian specific packaging stuff. > What I know is that it has a record of being broken. Stop that FUD. Ok, a lot was broken until last year, but I fixed everything and worked closely together with upstreams. If you have something that needs improvement, simply tell me. In general, calling the pro-audio stack in Debian to be broken is barely justifiable. Hint: Torben uses Debian unstable. Of course, I cannot be held responsible for our spin-offs like Ubuntu in all its incarnations (studio, xubuntu, kubuntu, whatever). > Here's an article where some of the technicalities are discussed in the > comments: http://ardour.org/node/2543 Old stuff. Check the expiry date of your truths. Reality changes over time. -- 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?
Excerpts from Ralf Mardorf's message of 2010-04-18 11:01:41 +0200: > Ok Marije, Arnold, Philipp :) > > programs don't depend to the development files, so I perceive that they > should be separated. > Today for 64 Studio 3.0-beta3 = Ubuntu Hardy we do have a package jackd > including /usr/bin/jackd. > A package jackdbus including nothing but copyright, TODO etc.. > A package libjack0, including /usr/lib/libjack.so. > A package libjack0.100.0-0, including nothing but copyright, TODO etc.. > A package libjack-dev, including the headers. > A package libjack0.100.0-dev, including nothing but copyright, TODO etc.. > And than there are the libjackserver packages, IIRC there aren't such > packages for Karmic. > > Again, I'm using JACK2, I prefer JACK2, I won't have any issues when > JACK2 will become default for all distros, but other people might like > to keep JACK1. Because at the moment JACK1 is default for some distros, > I know the troubles, when I changed to JACK2 or when I just compiled the > current version of JACK1, like I did for Karmic, fortunately my > favourite distro already ships with JACK2. > > For Karmic I've got 5 dummy packages and one package that really is needed. > > $ ls /media/disk/usr/src/dummy-packages > jackd_0.118.0_all.deb libjack0.100.0-0_0.118.0_all.deb > libjack-dev_0.118.0_all.deb > libjack0_0.118.0_all.deb libjack0.100.0-dev_0.118.0_all.deb > $ ls /media/disk/usr/src/jack-audio-connection-kit-0.118.0/*.deb > /media/disk/usr/src/jack-audio-connection-kit-0.118.0/jack-audio-connection-kit_0.118.0-1_i386.deb > > For Suse I don't know how to build dummy packages, first I ignored the > broken dependencies when doing upgrades, then I have had enough and > installed the regular packages, deleted all files and build the version > of JACK I wish to have. > > I don't understand the reason why this can't be changed. > > 2 Cents, > Ralf I don't really know, nor care, about debian specific packaging stuff. What I know is that it has a record of being broken. Here's an article where some of the technicalities are discussed in the comments: http://ardour.org/node/2543 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?
Ok Marije, Arnold, Philipp :) programs don't depend to the development files, so I perceive that they should be separated. Today for 64 Studio 3.0-beta3 = Ubuntu Hardy we do have a package jackd including /usr/bin/jackd. A package jackdbus including nothing but copyright, TODO etc.. A package libjack0, including /usr/lib/libjack.so. A package libjack0.100.0-0, including nothing but copyright, TODO etc.. A package libjack-dev, including the headers. A package libjack0.100.0-dev, including nothing but copyright, TODO etc.. And than there are the libjackserver packages, IIRC there aren't such packages for Karmic. Again, I'm using JACK2, I prefer JACK2, I won't have any issues when JACK2 will become default for all distros, but other people might like to keep JACK1. Because at the moment JACK1 is default for some distros, I know the troubles, when I changed to JACK2 or when I just compiled the current version of JACK1, like I did for Karmic, fortunately my favourite distro already ships with JACK2. For Karmic I've got 5 dummy packages and one package that really is needed. $ ls /media/disk/usr/src/dummy-packages jackd_0.118.0_all.deb libjack0.100.0-0_0.118.0_all.deb libjack-dev_0.118.0_all.deb libjack0_0.118.0_all.deb libjack0.100.0-dev_0.118.0_all.deb $ ls /media/disk/usr/src/jack-audio-connection-kit-0.118.0/*.deb /media/disk/usr/src/jack-audio-connection-kit-0.118.0/jack-audio-connection-kit_0.118.0-1_i386.deb For Suse I don't know how to build dummy packages, first I ignored the broken dependencies when doing upgrades, then I have had enough and installed the regular packages, deleted all files and build the version of JACK I wish to have. I don't understand the reason why this can't be changed. 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?
Excerpts from Arnold Krille's message of 2010-04-17 23:15:11 +0200: >... > That way your favourite > music player can have an output plugin that looks for jack and if that is not > running, looks for pulse and finally choose direct alsa for playback... > > Have fun, > > Arnold I don't see why jack needs to be splitted for this, it works just fine with jack installed in a single package. Example Audioplayer: Aqualung In general it seems to be a matter of taste, and while debian folk sees benefits in it others simply don't think it's worth the trouble. IMHO it simply shouldn't get in the way. And a package management system shouldn't get in the way of programs and users. 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?
Hi, On Friday 16 April 2010 19:55:49 Ralf Mardorf wrote: > Arnold, I don't have much money. 1. A hard disk isn't expensive. Sometimes a big hard-disk is not a question. Sometimes you use hardware that can't use big hard-disks. > 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. When you start with one package to contain both (debugging) binaries and headers, you will go on with all of them. Now lets see how big debug-symbols and headers from KDE, Qt, Gnome, firefox and openoffice are. > 3. Who does use Linux audio and > doesn't need libjack-dev? People distributing their own packages in their "private" network. Only the package-building machine needs the dev-packages. > 4. Who does produce music on a 20GB hard disk? I didn't say anything about producing, did I? The machine is meant to do "master"-processor for listening, both digital- room-correction for at-home and live-foh-master. Don't need much disk their. And newer disks with fine mechanics and narrower tracks on the disk are less fault-tolerant with respect to noise likely to be present at the foh. Originally that machine was to run from a 4GB CF-Card. Only the motherboard wouldn't boot from it. Now, why again should that machine have all the dev-stuff installed again? Why should sound-installations have the complete development-chain installed? I thought that it would be okay for jack to packaged with both server and client-lib in one package. But considering that I have libpulse installed to make apps looking for pulse happy, while the pulseserver is not installed (to make me happy), I have come to the conclusion, that jack also has to be split in server and client libs (and development packages!). That way your favourite music player can have an output plugin that looks for jack and if that is not running, looks for pulse and finally choose direct alsa for playback... Have fun, 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] distros migrating to JACK2?
On Friday 16 April 2010 13:55:49 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 ;)! People making sound installations running on embedded machines running software that needs jack? but otoh, I'd probably be building my own SuperCollider for that too... but then again, once it's built, I don't need the dev package anymore and I might be crosscompiling to get it onto the embedded device. sincerely, Marije ___ 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 Sat, Apr 17, 2010 at 12:10:10PM +0200, Stéphane LETZ wrote: > Concerning session management added in JACK codebase, I did not followed the > discussion in details. I said to Paul in a private mail that I though it was > not a good idea (but maybe I am completely wrong...) but I would certainly > not oppose to a implementation for jack2. I remember someone volunteered to > work on that ?? yeah. paniq said he would do it. but he somehow disappeared. i am working on it now. gonna push what i have to repo.or.cz after i finish this mail. its not finished yet. but please comment. -- torben Hohn ___ 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?
At Grame, we started working on JACK (jack1 at that time) in 2003 and our first commitment was to port the C code base on OSX. Even if the result was working, we rapidly felt that the C code base was not flexible enough to evolve in the direction we wanted to explore: multi-platforms support, SMP and glitch-free connections (among other ideas we had...) . Around 2004-2005 we had a new C++ based code base that was first developed on OSX, later ported in Linux (2005), on Windows (summer 2006) and Solaris (summer 2008 as a result of funding coming from RTL french radio). In 2004 we also found the way to better "integrate" JACK in the CoreAudio architecture on OSX (the JackRouter JACK/CoreAudio bridge) that allowed any CoreAudio application to become a JACK client, thus participating in the success we had on OSX with the JackOSX package. I think the "about 3 years ago, the JACK mini-summit in Berlin" Paul told about, was actually during LAC 2008 in Kohn. It was my impression that most of the JACK community was interested to see jackdmp (renamed jack2 at that moment) become the future of JACK, and late 2008 and 2009 was an intense period of work to reach this goal. Nedko (mostly but some other) did a huge job of improving the build system, implement the so-called "JACK Control API" (or at least the server side of it) and helped in other areas. The D-Bus based server control code (Nedko) was also integrated at that time. In spring 2009 started this "D-Bus war" and after endless discussion with people with strong opinions (Fons, Nedko...) it appeared that no agreement could be found. The best that we could achieve (in my view) was to clearly define the "JACK Control API" as the "frontier" between the external world that wants to control the JACK server, and the server code itself, and report all more sophisticated control mechanism outside. At about the same time, some developers (Torben, Paul ...) started to rebirth the jack1 codebase, and it appeared more and more clear that the "jack2 become the official code base" idea start to become a vanishing goal. I must say that I still don't have a clear understanding of why this happened. I still don't understand the sentence "Like Torben, there are some design decisions there that I have questions about." and I think explaining it in more details would really help. The fact that jack1 and jack2 are almost indistinguishable in everyday use is quite satisfactory, but at the same time the subtle difference that stay continue to cause some endless comments from users about the "real" advantages of each of the two implementations. I still see reports from "more xruns" here or a "bit less CPU use" there, but with no real data and clear "step by step way to reproduce issues" that would help to fix remaining bugs in jack2 codebase (for example jack2 still probably has issue with multi-cards support compared to jack1, but AFAICS this is in ALSA backend, and I cannot progress on that without the help of people with multi-cards and knowledge in ALSA backend code). Concerning session management added in JACK codebase, I did not followed the discussion in details. I said to Paul in a private mail that I though it was not a good idea (but maybe I am completely wrong...) but I would certainly not oppose to a implementation for jack2. I remember someone volunteered to work on that ?? I have to say that I become quite tired of all that mess, since I don't see any clear way to solve the situation. After about 5 years of real commitment in JACK project, I decided to move back a bit and work on some other stuff. I still try to follow bug reports and jack1 changes, release a package from time to time and maintain JackOSX project. I still think some interesting ideas (like the "pipelining" mode that currently stay in a jack2 branch...) are of interest (especially since we now see with those "4 cores/threads" model in new laptops...) and should be pushed in mainline. Stéphane ___ 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] 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] 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] 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
