On Tue, 26 Aug 2003, Junichi Uekawa wrote:
> I very much appreciate your efforts to keep binary compatibility,
> but I just hope it doesn't burden development too much.
> I'd rather see liberal development until satisfaction than seeing
> a lot of compatibility code already accumulating on jack.
>
Robert Jordens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> We didn't have so many releases of JACK. You can follow its history
> under (you can even subscribe to its development news and bugreports,
> hint, hint ;-):
I did subscribe, thanks.
> http://packages.qa.debian.org/j/jack-audio-connection-kit.html
A
Hello!
[Mon, 25 Aug 2003] Jack O'Quin wrote:
> But, we have actually done a rather good job on binary compatibility.
> It pains me to get no credit for this. With only a few exceptions,
> most JACK releases in the past year or two *have* been binary
> compatible with the older versions.
We all
Hi,
I admit that I haven't been following jack releases very closely recently.
I tend to check objdump output and decide that binary compatibility broke,
instead of checking every program to see if they are broken or not;
and that usually tells me that things are changed.
I very much appreciate
Junichi Uekawa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > a) almost every upstream release of jack was binary incompatible with
> > to the lder ones, thus the need for different package names.
>
> Note that the next jack release is most likely to be binary incompatible
> again considering that iwai's amd64
Hello!
[Mon, 25 Aug 2003] Andrea Glorioso wrote:
> > "ju" == Junichi Uekawa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> ju> The new version of jack library will be called libjack0.71.2-0
> ju> (although it is of version 0.75.0-1)
>
> Sorry for the dumb question, but what are the reasons for this
> a) almost every upstream release of jack was binary incompatible with
> to the lder ones, thus the need for different package names.
Note that the next jack release is most likely to be binary incompatible
again considering that iwai's amd64 64-bit-32-bit fix is being implemented.
regards,
> "ju" == Junichi Uekawa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
ju> The new version of jack library will be called libjack0.71.2-0
ju> (although it is of version 0.75.0-1)
Sorry for the dumb question, but what are the reasons for this
versioning scheme?
Feel free to point me to the relevant doc
> > You can get my proposal from:
> >
> > http://n.ethz.ch/student/robertjo/download/rj-deb/jack-audio-connection-kit/
>
> I get 403 access denied :-(
Hmm.. I can access just fine.
regards,
junichi
Robert Jordens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> You can get my proposal from:
>
> http://n.ethz.ch/student/robertjo/download/rj-deb/jack-audio-connection-kit/
I get 403 access denied :-(
> Robert.
Robert (same name same city...)
Hello!
[Fri, 22 Aug 2003] Uekawa, Junichi wrote:
> I'm rather convinced that there should be a new version.
> I'm moving this discussion to multimedia, but I think most of this is
> summed up now
>
> [New Version of Jack to hit unstable]
>
> The new version of Jack 0.75 will be uploaded RSN.
>
>
> As I said: Jack does not get in because that applications that use it
> need the glibc bugs and gcc bugs fixed. So you would have to remove
> _all_ jack applications from testing to let jack in because the ones in
> testing break if the old jack library disappears and the new
> applications br
12 matches
Mail list logo
