On 06/14/2013 03:47 PM, Adrian Knoth wrote:
>
> Frankly, I don't like your idea of splitting the package and defining a
> conflict between them. There has to be a better solution which allows
> for co-installation.
>
> One could further split the jackd2 package into something like
>
>- jackd
On 06/14/2013 04:09 PM, Felipe Sateler wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 9:47 AM, Adrian Knoth
> wrote:
>>
>> And while we're at it, let's move the manpages and the debconf files to
>> jackd-defaults to avoid code duplication between jackd1 and jackd2.
>
> If you do this you need to make a new pa
On Fri, Jun 14, 2013, at 03:47 PM, Adrian Knoth wrote:
> Frankly, I don't like your idea of splitting the package and defining a
> conflict between them. There has to be a better solution which allows
> for co-installation.
>
> One could further split the jackd2 package into something like
>
>
On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 9:47 AM, Adrian Knoth
wrote:
>
> And while we're at it, let's move the manpages and the debconf files to
> jackd-defaults to avoid code duplication between jackd1 and jackd2.
If you do this you need to make a new package in jackd-defaults
(jack-man?), and make jackd* depe
On 06/05/2013 07:18 AM, Kaj Ailomaa wrote:
I'd like to go ahead and change this in packaging, making jackdbus
and jackd separate for jack2. Also, make jackdbus conflict with
jackd. But, that is only if there are no bad implications from
doing this, and I currently know of none.
sorry, seems like I replied to the wrong receiver.
On Wed, Jun 5, 2013, at 05:42 AM, Kaj Ailomaa wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jun 5, 2013, at 02:49 AM, Robin Gareus wrote:
> > On 06/05/2013 02:18 AM, Kaj Ailomaa wrote:
> > > On Wed, May 29, 2013, at 09:12 AM, Kaj Ailomaa wrote:
> >
> > > I'd like to go ah
On 06/05/2013 02:18 AM, Kaj Ailomaa wrote:
> On Wed, May 29, 2013, at 09:12 AM, Kaj Ailomaa wrote:
> I'd like to go ahead and change this in packaging, making jackdbus and
> jackd separate for jack2. Also, make jackdbus conflict with jackd.
> But, that is only if there are no bad implications from
On Wed, May 29, 2013, at 09:12 AM, Kaj Ailomaa wrote:
> Has there been a discussion on what would be the best approach for
> packaging jack?
>
> I find that there sometimes is a problem where users wind up having both
> jackd and jackdbus running simultaniously. Is there any good reason for
> that
Has there been a discussion on what would be the best approach for
packaging jack?
I find that there sometimes is a problem where users wind up having both
jackd and jackdbus running simultaniously. Is there any good reason for
that to be able to happen?
Or should jack2 be packaged into two separ
