JACK2 package naming convention

[Daniel James]

Hi Adrian,

Thanks for looking into this :-)

> (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))

In that case I will investigate enabling ffado in our jack 1.9.3 packages.

> I agree that there's a large user base for
> jack1.

Port aliases seem like the way to go for backwards compatibility. 
playback1 and playback2 are OK if you only have a basic soundcard 
supported by ALSA, but for a ffado device (or multiple aggregrated ffado 
devices) you really need those more descriptive port names.

On my ALSA supported AC97 soundcard I still see playback1, playback2 
etc. with JACK 1.9.3 so there is no break in compatibility. This was 
more of a problem when JACK 1 changed from alsa_pcm: to system: port 
naming, as that affected all GNU/Linux users who run JACK - and we got 
over it.

So it seems this new 'bug':

http://subversion.ffado.org/ticket/234

may only affect users with certain FireWire devices who have been saving 
sessions with JACK 1 port names and are now migrating to JACK 2. We 
don't even know if the bug ticket reporter was using the latest upstream 
JACK 2 version.

> 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.

The current situation is that JACK 1 has had only one bugfix release 
this year, all new features have been in JACK 2 (with three upstream 
releases this year).

Cheers!

Daniel