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:
> > 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?
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