packaging jack...

[Jonas Smedegaard]

On Sat, Apr 17, 2010 at 09:48:41PM +0200, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
>On Sat, Apr 17, 2010 at 21:01:21 (CEST), Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Apr 17, 2010 at 03:25:45PM +0200, torbenh wrote:
>>
>>>we (upstream) will make sure they are binary compatible.
>>>all symbols added since jack-0.116 are mandated to be weak.
>>>if there are any issues with binary compatibility these are bugs.
>>
>> Sounds like a promise of a stable API.
>>
>> How about then bumping the API from 0 to 1?
>
>if you mean the SONAME, then you would require rebuilding all 
>applications for no reason. There is absolutely no need for this.

Then packages could depend unversioned on libjack1, instead of versioned 
on libjack0 >= 0.116.0.

That would make it possible to offer alternative jackd implementations:

Alternative implementations simply should not provide a *-dev package, 
to enforce build-depending against the "main" jackd implementation (for 
now that means jakcd1, might change to a different one in the future).

I suspect that is the simplest approach to multiple jack implementations 
in Debian.


  - Jonas

-- 
* Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
* Tlf.: +45 40843136  Website: http://dr.jones.dk/

  [x] quote me freely  [ ] ask before reusing  [ ] keep private
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-multimedia-maintainers/attachments/20100417/d3ef92fe/attachment.pgp>