packaging jack...

[Gabriel M. Beddingfield]

Hi Jonas,

On Tue, 20 Apr 2010, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:

> Let me then adjust and refine my proposal (main point is the same):
[snip]
>
> It was suggested to discuss the introduction of the virtual libjack-0.116.0 
> on d-devel.  I consider that unnecessary as it is coordinated only amongst 3 
> packages that are all maintained by us.  But if someone finds it relevant and

I don't understand the libjack-0.116.0 thing.  Is that going 
to be the package name?  If so, that sounds like we would be 
repeating the libjack0.100.0 mistake.

> Later it might make sense to try support officially linking against alternate 
> implementations. If that works out, it might make sense to repackage jackd1 
> similar to the others, so as to treat all implementations as equal 
> competitors.  But that is post Squeeze IMO.

An alternative to keep from holding up squeeze could be: 
keep things as they are currently... with Jack 1.  Keep Jack 
2 in sid (or something) so users can upgrade to it if they 
want.  Meanwhile, the proposal sounds odd because of the way 
that the package names relate and the 0.116.0 thing.

Right now going from jack1->jack2 is a clean upgrade because 
of the version numbers... so (for me) that would be fine. 
This all hit the fan because it's hard for users to go from 
jack2->jack1 because they have to force a downgrade.... and 
the LAD list was told that squeeze would ship with Jack 2.

BTW, this is no disrespect to Jack 2.  I use Jack 2 every 
day.

Peace,
Gabriel