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

Am Donnerstag, den 10.02.2011, 10:57 -0600 schrieb Gabriel M.
Beddingfield:
> 
> On Thu, 10 Feb 2011, Arnold Krille wrote:
> 
> > On Thursday 10 February 2011 17:22:18 Gabriel M. Beddingfield wrote:
> >> But when the hapless user sees package names
> >> libjack-jackd2-0, what do you expect them to think?
> >
> > "Mee, it starts with lib<bla>... I don't care what it is, if some apps need
> > it, its fine. If no app needs it, set the dependency to 'auto' and hope the
> > package-management does the right thing."
> >
> > Unless the users distinctly want to use a different flavour of jack. But then
> > again they should know what they are doing.
> 
> Hmmm... this doesn't sound like the typical LAU user.  They 
> do notice, and you just know that people are going to 
> shorten it to libjack2 in a ML post and IRC.
> 
> > And if they know even better, they let the distributions version live in /usr
> > and compile/install their wanted version in $HOME, adjust PKG_CONFIG_PATH,
> > PATH and LD_LIBRARY_PATH and be fine with it :-)
> 
> ...except that Jack1 prohibits this, and you've 
> probably just invoked the wrath of Paul again.  :-)
> 
> -gabriel
> 
I'm a debian user, and I switch from time to time between jack1 and
jack2, to make some test to see if things handled different, therefore I
have dummy packages for both versions witch I install over the version I
didn't wone use now, and install the full version witch I will use. This
way I never get dependency problems. I cant remember a case were a app
have problems with that. For the package management system (apt) it
looks like I have ever both versions installed. 
I just notice some minor diff's in client registration handling.

regards  hermann

1297361754.6196_0.ltw:2,a <1297358039.2096.8.camel at box>