On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 13:50, Jonas Smedegaard <d...@jones.dk> wrote: > On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 01:23:03PM -0300, Felipe Sateler wrote:
>> Also, if my understanding is correct, jack2 is ABI compatible with jack1, >> so no library transition is needed. > > That was my impression too. If so, why don't we ship *both*? > > Let's rename jackd → jackd1, package jackd2, and let both binary packages > provide jackd as a virtual package. There are a bunch of packages depending on jackd (>= something), so this approach would break those apps. A metapackage depending on jackd1 | jackd2 would work, though. -- Saludos, Felipe Sateler _______________________________________________ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
