Quoting The Wanderer (2012-12-10 14:41:51) > Just to clarify: is JACK v2 strictly a superset of JACK v1 in terms of > API and presumably ABI? Or are there parts of the JACK v1 API which > JACK v2 does not provide? > > If the former, then I would be inclined to consider this a strict > transition/upgrade situation. If the latter, then I find your comment > below about "the JACK v2 extensions to the ABI/API" to be confusing, > in that I understand "extensions" to be simply additions on top of > what was already present - as opposed to incompatible modifications.
Ahem, sorry: Please forget about "JACK v2". That is the wrong name (my fault!) , and confuses matters! There are multiple implementations of JACK, and one of those implementations happen to have a "2" in its name. Maybe in the future we will look back and realize than jackd2 became the "surviver" of those currently in friendly competition, but there is no transition going on currently. I repeat: it is not a transition. There is a common ABI, shared among multiple implementations, and there is development headers which conflict with each other, and there is linkage depending not on the shared ABI but on unique features of one of them. > To be clear, I'm not saying there's a functionality problem here. The > problem I see is one of user-friendliness and discoverability. You might be right that there is a more elegant way to express the complex situation with these package relations - but first step in helping with that is to understand what are the package relations we try to express ;-) > It took me several days and a chance comment from someone on > debian-user to figure out that there even *was* a replacement -dev > package. Not replacement, but alternative. libjack-dev still exist and should be fully functional. > At first, I had thought that the -dev package simply hadn't been > updated to match the newer library package (and the newer binary > packages, jackd2 et al.), so I was waiting for an updated version to > appear in testing which would not require me to remove the -dev > package in order to dist-upgrade; the thought that it might already > have been updated, but simply wasn't being installed as part of the > dist-upgrade, didn't even occur to me. When you have development tools installed, you will not experience as smooth an upgrade as when you do not. The purpose of dist-upgrade (as opposed to upgrade) is to relax dependency handling to permit more aggressive solutions to the complex puzzle of package relation conflicts. - Jonas P.S. Skipping parts of your email does not mean that I find it silly or irrelevant, just that I had no comment on it. We are multiple package developers, and I leave your qustions hanging for others to hopefully contribute too. -- * 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: signature
_______________________________________________ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
