Bug#556392: jackeq does not start

[Felipe Sateler]

Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> Felipe Sateler <fsateler at gmail.com> writes:
> 
>> Adrian Knoth wrote:
>>> On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 12:07:25PM -0300, Felipe Sateler wrote:
>>>
>>>>> The generic fix is to recompile jackeq against new jackd package. Since
>>>>> we know the entire set of jackified apps, I see no point in
>>>>> reintroducing this 0.100.0 thing, it would bite us in jackd2 again.
>>>> (Is jack2 API and ABI compatible with jack1?)
>>> Yes, it's a drop-in replacement, and users can decide whether they want
>>> to use jack1 or jack2. They also keep the command line syntax in sync.
>> Cool. Maybe it is possible to start a jack2 branch for experminental?
>> (Actually 2, one for upstream and another for the packaging).
> 
> I'm just curious: Is the plan to have jack1 and jack2 co installable? If
> yes, how is this going to work when both provide the same ABI/SONAME?
> 
>>> Though it's not that hard to re-enable these two lines, I think we made
>>> everything right. I don't think we support mixed lenny/testing
>>> environments, we focus on squeeze. And for squeeze, we're done. ;)
>> Not quite. We need to binNMU every package that has not been built since
>> etch (if there are any). Does anyone know an easy recipe for checking
>> this? And make libjack0 Breaks: the old version of those packages so
>> that a mixed upgrade is not possible. We don't seem to have any of
>> those, but I might be mistaken. And a list of packages already rebuilt
>> would be useful too, to add those packages to the Breaks line too.
>>
>>>> thing is that now a mixed upgrade of jack and friends can leave
>>>> applications in a broken state.
>>> If you think we should support this scenario, I'd second your proposal
>>> of re-adding the 0.100 compat link.
>> I agree with Fabian, maybe it is better to add Breaks: for older than
>> the rebuilt packages.
> 
> I: [Chroot sid-amd64-sbuild-dbc022aa-b332-44c5-9384-f68d19126fab] Starte Login-Shell: »/bin/bash«
> rt at debian-build:~$ apt-cache rdepends libjack0.100.0-0
> <libjack0.100.0-0>
> 
> seems that there are no packages left in unstable that still depend on
> libjack0.100.0-0. In stable, the following packages depend on
> libjack0.100.0-0:
> 
>   timemachine
>   meterbridge
>   libjackasyn0
>   libjack0
>   ladccad
>   ladcca-bin
>   jackeq
>   horgand
>   galan
>   creox
>   brutefir
>   bitscope
>   amsynth
> 
> 
> none of these packages have been removed from unstable. I therefore
> conclude that there are no packages for which we should add this breaks.

Well, the idea of the Breaks directive is to avoid having a pre-lenny 
program with a post-lenny jack. So I think adding Breaks to all these <= 
lenny-version would do it (although maybe too restrictive).

-- 
Saludos,
Felipe Sateler