Re: [Jack-Devel] alsa_in problems

PrevNext  Index
DateSat, 24 Dec 2011 15:56:04 -0500
From jordan <[hidden] at gmail dot com>
ToRalf Madorf <[hidden] at alice-dsl dot net>
Cc[hidden] at lists dot jackaudio dot org
Follow-UpRobin Gareus [Jack-Devel] ladish + jack autoconnect -- was Re: alsa_in problems
> Wow, what kind of absurd nonsense is this? I switched to Arch, but had
> no time to set up my machine until now.

No need to be rude, Ralf. I could easily comment on your short
comings. ie: not being able to properly configure your system, and
essentially switching distros because of it. taking 2 months to do
something that takes 5 minutes + compile time? that is absurd.

> Fons wrote:
>
>Please don't post completely misleading information.
>
>There is NO such thing as "jack's default behavior of auto-connect/self-connect".

My explanation was admittedly bad, indeed. and my apologies to the list. T

hat being said;

* the no-selfconnect.patch nonetheless serves the purpose of disabling
auto-connect/self-connect by clients.* ~ which sounds like the issue
that Ede Wolf was having, and is also why the patch exists in the
first place, and why i posted ~ users like myself, would rather that
nothing (no clients) in jack auto-connect, at all. (rather than having
to go through each client/app, which is a longer process, and not
everyone starts every app from the command line).

> AFAIK there's no other distro where jackd has a default
> 'auto-connect/self-connect' behaviour. I don't belief it will have for
> Arch, but as we say in German "man hat schon Pferde vor der Apotheke
> kotzen gesehen", it means something similar to, nothing is impossible.

Yup, again bad explanation ~ it stops the clients from auto-connecting
(or ignores the request, im not sure which). I've been using it since
the patch first appeared... it's great. As far as Arch is concerned
every version of jack is available for Arch. ie: jack1, jack1-dbus,
jack2, jack2-dbus (plus multilib builds) and even tschak + svn
versions for all of them.

...and Fonz, would it not be better on this list to clarify rather
than just saying this was misleading information??? ie: why was it
misleading, fons? (rhetorical) it does not help users to just say
'this is misleading info', and is even less helpful that what i had
written in the first place, and probably creates even more confusion.

At least i provided a link to a patch that disables clients from
auto-connecting, even if my explanation was inaccurate. You didn't
even bother to give ANY explanation, at all..

But again, sorry for the terrible explanation.

Jordan
PrevNext  Index

1324760174.1646_0.ltw:2,a <CAOcfFMz0YM1O_Y588EK2=4FaUVPjm-X1JoFHmBesU8b5vfTPbA at mail dot gmail dot com>