On Mon, 26 Apr 2010, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 9:20 AM, Gabriel M. Beddingfield
wrote:
ABI back-compatibility has never been assured - if a program was linked
against JACK API M.N.m and the runtime installation is a version earlier
than that, there may be problems as
On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 9:20 AM, Gabriel M. Beddingfield
wrote:
ABI back-compatibility has never been assured - if a program was
linked against JACK API M.N.m and the runtime installation is a
version earlier than that, there may be problems as you noted. the
new rules on weak symbols post t
On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 08:29:40AM -0500, Gabriel M. Beddingfield wrote:
On Sun, 25 Apr 2010, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
I notice, though, that above links only mention API, not ABI. Is it
safe to expect library ABI (runtime linkage) to be frozen too if its
API (compile time interface) is?
I'm
Davis
To: Gabriel M. Beddingfield
Cc: Jack-Devel
Subject: Re: [Jack-Devel] packaging jack - details on "plan B" (fwd)
On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 9:20 AM, Gabriel M. Beddingfield
wrote:
Jack Devs:
Please see the below e-mail (from debian packaging list) where Jonas would
like a cla
Hi Jonas,
On Sun, 25 Apr 2010, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
I notice, though, that above links only mention API, not ABI. Is it safe to
expect library ABI (runtime linkage) to be frozen too if its API (compile
time interface) is?
I'm sure that the answer is "yes," but I've asked the
upstream d
On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 04:38:17 (CEST), Felipe Sateler wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 25, 2010 at 14:27, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
>> On Sun, Apr 25, 2010 at 19:47:47 (CEST), Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
>>
>>> I notice, though, that above links only mention API, not ABI. Is it
>>> safe to expect library ABI (r
On Sun, Apr 25, 2010 at 14:27, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 25, 2010 at 19:47:47 (CEST), Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
>
>> I notice, though, that above links only mention API, not ABI. Is it
>> safe to expect library ABI (runtime linkage) to be frozen too if its API
>> (compile time interface
On Sun, Apr 25, 2010 at 19:47:47 (CEST), Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> I notice, though, that above links only mention API, not ABI. Is it
> safe to expect library ABI (runtime linkage) to be frozen too if its API
> (compile time interface) is?
Generally speaking, yes.
(well, unless there are toolc
On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 03:36:02PM -0500, Gabriel M. Beddingfield wrote:
Hi Jonas,
On Fri, 23 Apr 2010, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
[3] Going backwards has never been promised, though. A
program compiled against 0.118.0 will work with 0.34.0.
However, the use of weak symbols for new features
On Sat, Apr 24, 2010 at 06:38:09AM -0500, Gabriel M. Beddingfield wrote:
> On Sat, 24 Apr 2010, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
>> On Sat, Apr 24, 2010 at 02:39:16AM +0200, Adrian Knoth wrote:
>>> We instantly switch to jackd2. End of the story.
>> Thanks for a clear cut message.
>> I can accept that.
> Fo
On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 22:11:15 (CEST), Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
>
> Regarding options:
>
> Let me try summarize anew, given my new understanding (dropping
> potentially provocative names):
>
> a) Stay with jackd1, ignoring jackd2 and tchack.
> b) Switch to jackd2, abandoning jackd1 and ignorin
On Sat, 24 Apr 2010, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
On Sat, Apr 24, 2010 at 02:39:16AM +0200, Adrian Knoth wrote:
We instantly switch to jackd2. End of the story.
Thanks for a clear cut message.
I can accept that.
For Squeeze, I'm OK with this, too.
-gabriel
_
Hi,
|--==> On Sat, 24 Apr 2010 09:11:27 +0200, Reinhard Tartler
said:
RT> On Sat, Apr 24, 2010 at 09:00:17 (CEST), Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
>>On Sat, Apr 24, 2010 at 02:39:16AM +0200, Adrian Knoth wrote:
>>
>>>We instantly switch to jackd2. End of the story.
>>
>>Thanks for a clear c
On Sat, Apr 24, 2010 at 02:18:16AM +0200, Adrian Knoth wrote:
On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 05:52:35PM -0500, Gabriel M. Beddingfield wrote:
On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 02:32:45PM -0500, Gabriel M. Beddingfield wrote:
[1] http://trac.jackaudio.org/wiki/SuggestedPackagingApproach
Note that this is a wi
On Sat, Apr 24, 2010 at 09:00:17 (CEST), Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 24, 2010 at 02:39:16AM +0200, Adrian Knoth wrote:
>
>>We instantly switch to jackd2. End of the story.
>
> Thanks for a clear cut message.
>
> I can accept that.
>
> If noone else has a say against it within the next 24
On Sat, Apr 24, 2010 at 02:39:16AM +0200, Adrian Knoth wrote:
We instantly switch to jackd2. End of the story.
Thanks for a clear cut message.
I can accept that.
If noone else has a say against it within the next 24h (where I am busy
anyway attending some family business) I will release jac
On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 01:48:01PM +0200, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> > * conservative: Stay with jackd1, ignoring jackd2 and tchack.
> > * stubborn: Switch to jackd2, abandoning jackd1 and ignoring tchack.
> > * bold: switch to supporting multiple implementations.
> >
> > You seem to want the st
On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 05:52:35PM -0500, Gabriel M. Beddingfield wrote:
>> On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 02:32:45PM -0500, Gabriel M. Beddingfield wrote:
>>> [1] http://trac.jackaudio.org/wiki/SuggestedPackagingApproach
>>
>> Note that this is a wiki and the suggestions come from only one person.
>
> T
On Fri, 23 Apr 2010, Eric Dantan Rzewnicki wrote:
On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 02:32:45PM -0500, Gabriel M. Beddingfield wrote:
[1] http://trac.jackaudio.org/wiki/SuggestedPackagingApproach
Note that this is a wiki and the suggestions come from only one person.
True, but Nedko (the author of th
On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 02:32:45PM -0500, Gabriel M. Beddingfield wrote:
> Hi guys,
> I'm new to the details of deb packaging... so I may be replying to the
> wrong snippets... but:
> [1] http://trac.jackaudio.org/wiki/SuggestedPackagingApproach
Note that this is a wiki and the suggestions come f
On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 02:29:00PM +0200, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 14:16:36 (CEST), Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
2. Initially release src:jackd2:
* jackd2 conflicts/replaces/provides jackd
* libjack0-jackd2 conflicts/replaces libjack0
* libjack0-jackd2 provides l
Hi Jonas,
On Fri, 23 Apr 2010, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
[3] Going backwards has never been promised, though. A
program compiled against 0.118.0 will work with 0.34.0.
However, the use of weak symbols for new features may
make this available.
Isn't it exactly "going backwards" if jac
On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 02:32:45PM -0500, Gabriel M. Beddingfield wrote:
Therefore, any old program will work without recompile on a new
libjack0. Jack 2 (formerly jackdmp) has also rigorously maintained
binary compatability with Jack 1.[3]
[...]
[3] Going backwards has never been promised
On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 01:48:01PM +0200, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 13:30:55 (CEST), Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
I don't understand the libjack-0.116.0 thing. Is that going to be
the package name? If so, that sounds like we would be repeating
the libjack0.100.0 mistake.
I
Hi guys,
I'm new to the details of deb packaging... so I may be
replying to the wrong snippets... but:
Package: libjack-jackd2-0
Provides: libjack-0.116.0
Conflicts: libjack0
Yes, something like that.
4. Release jackd1 to experimental, with libjack0 providing virtual
package libja
On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 07:35:28AM -0400, Eric Dantan Rzewnicki wrote:
On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 10:55:20AM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
If I get no response on this by sunday, and noone else objects, I
will go ahead with my proposed plan.
I've tried to follow this as closely as I can, but I
On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 14:16:36 (CEST), Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
>
>>> 2. Initially release src:jackd2:
>>> * jackd2 conflicts/replaces/provides jackd
>>> * libjack0-jackd2 conflicts/replaces libjack0
>>> * libjack0-jackd2 provides libjack-0.116.0
>>> * libjack-jackd2-dev conflicts
On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 13:30:55 (CEST), Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
I don't understand the libjack-0.116.0 thing. Is that going to be
the package name? If so, that sounds like we would be repeating the
libjack0.100.0 mistake.
>>>
>>> It is more like an add-on tag, indicating the libr
On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 10:55:20AM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> Hi Reinhard and others,
> On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 02:16:36PM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 12:26:41PM +0200, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
>>> With you're proposal, I think switching from one alternative
>>>
Hi Reinhard and others,
On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 02:16:36PM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 12:26:41PM +0200, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
With you're proposal, I think switching from one alternative
implementation to another one won't work. For example switching
from tschac
On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 12:26:41PM +0200, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 10:17:42 (CEST), Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
On Sat, Apr 17, 2010 at 09:32:47PM +0200, torbenh wrote:
On Sat, Apr 17, 2010 at 09:13:34PM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
I propose to stick to jackd1 as the de
On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 12:09:50PM +0200, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 09:45:22 (CEST), Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 07:48:26PM -0500, Gabriel M. Beddingfield wrote:
On Tue, 20 Apr 2010, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
Let me then adjust and refine my proposal
On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 10:17:42 (CEST), Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 17, 2010 at 09:32:47PM +0200, torbenh wrote:
>>On Sat, Apr 17, 2010 at 09:13:34PM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
>
>>> I propose to stick to jackd1 as the default/only library for other
>>> packages to rely on until the
On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 09:45:22 (CEST), Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 07:48:26PM -0500, Gabriel M. Beddingfield wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 20 Apr 2010, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
>>
>>>Let me then adjust and refine my proposal (main point is the same):
>>[snip]
>>>
>>> It was suggested t
On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 07:48:26PM -0500, Gabriel M. Beddingfield wrote:
On Tue, 20 Apr 2010, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
Let me then adjust and refine my proposal (main point is the same):
[snip]
It was suggested to discuss the introduction of the virtual
libjack-0.116.0 on d-devel. I consid
Hi Jonas,
On Tue, 20 Apr 2010, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
Let me then adjust and refine my proposal (main point is the same):
[snip]
It was suggested to discuss the introduction of the virtual libjack-0.116.0
on d-devel. I consider that unnecessary as it is coordinated only amongst 3
packag
On Sat, Apr 17, 2010 at 09:32:47PM +0200, torbenh wrote:
On Sat, Apr 17, 2010 at 09:13:34PM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
I propose to stick to jackd1 as the default/only library for other
packages to rely on until the rerlease of Squeeze, and only offer
alternative daemons (and eventually -
On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 10:48, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 15:19:38 (CEST), Felipe Sateler wrote:
>
>> But there is a point. If an application is expected to cope with
>> missing functions at runtime, why not at compile time too?
>
> because the used implementation at runtime
On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 15:19:38 (CEST), Felipe Sateler wrote:
> But there is a point. If an application is expected to cope with
> missing functions at runtime, why not at compile time too?
because the used implementation at runtime might not match the
implementation that was used at compilation
On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 09:00, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 09:18:06AM +0200, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, Apr 17, 2010 at 22:07:56 (CEST), Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, Apr 17, 2010 at 09:48:41PM +0200, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
On Sat, Apr 17, 2010
On Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 09:18:06AM +0200, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
On Sat, Apr 17, 2010 at 22:07:56 (CEST), Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
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:
Gabriel M. Beddingfield wrote:
>
>
> On Sat, 17 Apr 2010, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
>
>>> stop right here.
>>> the library and the daemon are tied together.
>>> the protocol between jackd and libjack is NOT fixed.
>>>
>>> (basically i consider it a mistake to even have libjack and jackd in
>>> dif
On Sat, Apr 17, 2010 at 22:07:56 (CEST), Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> 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 su
On Sat, Apr 17, 2010 at 22:02:14 (CEST), Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> I think others have tried pointing it out to me already, and it begins
> to get through my thick skull: Even if both ABI and API is compatible
> across implementations, it is _application_ ABI and API - the daemon use
> a _differen
Puh, here goes another lengthy mail...
On Sat, Apr 17, 2010 at 20:31:46 (CEST), Felipe Sateler wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 17, 2010 at 09:25, torbenh wrote:
>> adi said that you somehow seem to believe that
>> there cant be virtual packages containing libraries.
>>
>> this is not true.
>>
>> if you cre
On Sat, Apr 17, 2010 at 04:01:17PM -0500, Gabriel M. Beddingfield wrote:
On Sat, 17 Apr 2010, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
When you register with libjack, it will start the daemon if it is
not already running. So, you can't have the library without the
daemon.[*]
That sounds like trouble: if s
On Sat, 17 Apr 2010, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
When you register with libjack, it will start the daemon if it is not
already running. So, you can't have the library without the daemon.[*]
That sounds like trouble: if such application is invoked inside a chroot, it
causes a mess!
Debian man
On Sat, Apr 17, 2010 at 03:22:54PM -0500, Gabriel M. Beddingfield wrote:
On Sat, 17 Apr 2010, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
stop right here.
the library and the daemon are tied together.
the protocol between jackd and libjack is NOT fixed.
(basically i consider it a mistake to even have libjack an
On Sat, 17 Apr 2010, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
stop right here.
the library and the daemon are tied together.
the protocol between jackd and libjack is NOT fixed.
(basically i consider it a mistake to even have libjack and jackd in
different packages) but it might make sense to have that.
The
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
On Sat, Apr 17, 2010 at 09:32:47PM +0200, torbenh wrote:
On Sat, Apr 17, 2010 at 09:13:34PM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
Not an answer (as you know I am incapable of doing so), but I
propose to stick to jackd1 as the default/only library for other
packages to rely on until the rerlease of Sq
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
On Sat, Apr 17, 2010 at 09:13:34PM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 17, 2010 at 02:31:46PM -0400, Felipe Sateler wrote:
> >On Sat, Apr 17, 2010 at 09:25, torbenh wrote:
> >>
> >>hi...
> >
> >Hi Torben. (I'm CCing you because I don't know if you are subscribed).
>
> Oh, good point.
>
On Sat, Apr 17, 2010 at 02:31:46PM -0400, Felipe Sateler wrote:
On Sat, Apr 17, 2010 at 09:25, torbenh wrote:
hi...
Hi Torben. (I'm CCing you because I don't know if you are subscribed).
Oh, good point.
Torben: Please see my earlier response to your post. And please when
posting to Debi
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
On Sat, Apr 17, 2010 at 09:25, torbenh wrote:
>
> hi...
Hi Torben. (I'm CCing you because I don't know if you are subscribed).
>
> i just want to make sure you leave the option open
> to package alternative jack versions.
>
> adi said that you somehow seem to believe that
> there cant be virtual
hi...
i just want to make sure you leave the option open
to package alternative jack versions.
adi said that you somehow seem to believe that
there cant be virtual packages containing libraries.
this is not true.
if you create debian/libjack0.shlibs
and put
---
57 matches
Mail list logo
