On Sat, Apr 17, 2010 at 09:48:41PM +0200, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
On Sat, Apr 17, 2010 at 21:01:21 (CEST), Jonas Smedegaard wrote:On Sat, Apr 17, 2010 at 03:25:45PM +0200, torbenh wrote:we (upstream) will make sure they are binary compatible. all symbols added since jack-0.116 are mandated to be weak. if there are any issues with binary compatibility these are bugs.Sounds like a promise of a stable API. How about then bumping the API from 0 to 1?if you mean the SONAME, then you would require rebuilding all applications for no reason. There is absolutely no need for this.
Then packages could depend unversioned on libjack1, instead of versioned on libjack0 >= 0.116.0.
That would make it possible to offer alternative jackd implementations:Alternative implementations simply should not provide a *-dev package, to enforce build-depending against the "main" jackd implementation (for now that means jakcd1, might change to a different one in the future).
I suspect that is the simplest approach to multiple jack implementations in Debian.
- Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
