Re: [Jack-Devel] lib{j, tsch}ack{, 1, 2} [Was: Jack "capsule/container" implementation?]

On 02/10/11 17:18, Paul Davis wrote:

>>    http://trac.jackaudio.org/ticket/176
>>    http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=581418
>> IIRC, there were 2 other packages affected by the same bug.

Exactly, one was fmit.

> my reading of the comments in the debian report is that *debian* had
> to fix a problem that *they* introduced into the packaging. there is

Then your reading is wrong. I admit that both, the trac ticket and the
bug report are pretty incomplete, but the root cause of this problem was
a wrong visibility statement in jackd2.

I had a look at my mail archive, here are the links that provide the
necessary insight:

   http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=561415


http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?msg=5;filename=fmit-jackd2.patch;att=1;bug=561415

And then the corresponding fix in jackd2:

   http://trac.jackaudio.org/changeset/4078

I've added these bits to ticket 176 now.


Lessons learned: bug tracking needs to be a lot more explicit. All
details should be recorded in the tickets, commits need to mention the
tickets they intend to fix.


Cheers

PS: Don't wanna make a fuss about that, but I've spent a huge amount of
time last year to get these jackd things right. It isn't exactly
motivating to get blamed each time somebody mentions "jackd" and
"Debian", especially not when the real culprit is jackd(2) itself.

1297360568.3554_0.ltw:2,Sa <4D54269F.70707 at drcomp dot erfurt dot thur dot de>