jack for lenny

[Free Ekanayaka]

Hi Reinhard,

|--==> On Mon, 12 Jan 2009 16:02:34 +0100, Reinhard Tartler <siretart at tauware.de> said:

  RT> Loïc Minier <lool at dooz.org> writes:
  >>>thread.h changes the binary structure of jack_position_t.
  >>
  >>Is it an internal only structure, or is it exposed to applications to
  >>pass around jack's ABI?

  RT> Well, it is in an public header, so I suspect it to be used by
  RT> applications. I've therefore downloaded all packages build-depending on
  RT> libjack-dev (I used the versions in lenny) and identified the following
  RT> packages referencing that type (with a simple grep, false positives are
  RT> possible!):

  RT> mscore
  RT> muse
  RT> openmovieeditor
  RT> qtractor
  RT> rosegarden
  RT> traverso

  >>Are applications doing things like
  >>jack_position_t * ppos = jack_position_new(); jack_position_set(ppos)
  >>etc., or are applications doing things like
  >>jack_position_t pos; pos.foo = bar
  >>?

  RT> No idea, we would need to investigate the source code of the packages
  RT> listed above. But I'm not sure if that really matters, because the
  RT> compiler of applications that have been built against 0.109 would almost
  RT> certainly have a different idea of the binary layout compared to the
  RT> structure in version 0.116, if there is really a problem.

  RT> Free, does your testing include the above packages from lenny (read:
  RT> packages that have been built with version 0.109) with jack 0.116?

Me and others have tested rosegarden, muse, openmovieeditor, qtractor
and mscore, which are the most popular apps in the list above. They
all work fine with lenny plus backported jack 0.116.

I've now tested also traverso, and basic operations (recording,
playback) all work.

  RT> And moreover, do you have some more numbers about the testcoverage?
  RT> Like how the testing was done and how many users have tested the
  RT> relevant scenario (read: packages built against 0.109 and being used
  RT> with libjack 0.116)?

We are three people having tested a pure lenny system with a
backported libjack 0.116 (same source package as in sid, built against
lenny with cowbuilder [0]). Two persons tested i386 and one amd64.

  RT> TBH, from the source code inspection, I do expect problems. We could of
  RT> course go ahead and patch out that change, and recompile. If we split
  RT> out the libjackserver.so library to some new pacakge libjackserver0, we
  RT> can *perhaps* maintain shlibs. But I'm not yet convinced that this would
  RT> be worth the efford. :-(

According to the tests that won't be needed.

Ciao!

Free

[0] http://64studio.com:9997/job/2712
    http://64studio.com:9997/job/2711