On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 06:24:10PM +0100, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 02:09:33PM -0300, Felipe Sateler wrote: >> 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. > Ah, good point. >> A metapackage depending on jackd1 | jackd2 would work, though. > > I find a metapackage an inelegant approach. > > My suggestion is then to keep jackd as-is for now but > > a) introduce a new jackd2 > (hopefully ready for inclusion with Squeeze),
It is already in experimental (as jackd 1.9.4+svn3842-2). -edrz _______________________________________________ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
