JACK2 package naming convention

Eric Dantan Rzewnicki eric at zhevny.com
Mon Oct 5 12:25:30 UTC 2009

On Sun, Oct 04, 2009 at 12:15:07PM +0200, Adrian Knoth wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 11:59:49AM +0100, Daniel James wrote:
> Hi!
> > Sounds like a good plan :-) Can I get the JACK 1.9.3 packages sponsored  
> > for upload to experimental? Or do they need more work first?
> > http://apt.64studio.com/backports/pool/main/j/jack-audio-connection-kit/jack-audio-connection-kit_1.9.3-2.dsc
> > http://apt.64studio.com/backports/pool/main/j/jack-audio-connection-kit/jack-audio-connection-kit_1.9.3-2.tar.gz 
> > http://apt.64studio.com/backports/pool/main/j/jack-audio-connection-kit/jack-audio-connection-kit_1.9.3-2_source.changes
> IMHO, the package is NOT ready for uploading, because it differs too
> much from the current jack1 package in unstable. It lacks several
> improvements we did over the last few months.
> To give some examples:
>    * libjack0.100* should be dropped
>    * IEEE 1394 backends should be in a separate package
>    * template for RT POSIX configuration is missing
>    * init-script should be dropped
> I'd rather take the existing jackd1 package and import the new upstream
> code, then fix the missing bits (waf, some patches, package naming,
> paths and so on).
> If you like, I could give it a whirl.

For sake of argument, what would be involved in having packages for both
jack1 and jack2?

-Eric Rz.

This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

More information about the pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list