JACK2 package naming convention

Adrian Knoth adi at drcomp.erfurt.thur.de
Fri Sep 25 14:11:35 UTC 2009

On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 12:40:40PM +0100, Daniel James wrote:

> Hi all,


[I've changed the CC to the right mailing list]

> I have built some JACK2 (1.9.3) debs for Lenny, and Ubuntu Hardy and  
> Jaunty, based on the Debianization by Nedko Arnaudov. However some users  
> still want to use JACK1 versions (such as 0.116.2), pointing out that  
> some features are not yet fully available in JACK2. For instance,  
> FireWire audio interface support through FFADO, see:
> http://subversion.ffado.org/ticket/234#comment:1

Though this bug isn't entirely correct (responsible for port naming is
jack2 (linux/firewire/JackFFADODRiver.cpp:503), not FFADO, port names
with jack2 are even better than with jack1 (something_SPDIF_L makes much
more sense than playback42)), I agree that there's a large user base for

> As JACK2 is a ground-up rewrite, is there a case for Debian/Ubuntu  
> packages being named differently from JACK1 packages so that users have  
> a choice about which to install or use?

Currently, we only have jack1, but if we want to provide both, we need
to introduce something like virtual packages, i.e. libjack, libjack-dev
and jackd. Then, we'd have jackd1 and jackd2, libjack0, libjack1 (a
little bit tricky when it comes to SONAME), and so on. They would all
provide the virtual packages.

I don't have any experience with this kind of constructs. Question is:
do we want to provide both jackd versions or can we live pretty well
with only one?

If upstream says jackd2 is ready to be used as a snap-in replacement for
jack1, we'd simply go for jackd2 and omit virtual packages.

mail: adi at thur.de  	http://adi.thur.de	PGP/GPG: key via keyserver

More information about the pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list