From 1be510f9529cb082f802408b472a77d074b394c0 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Nicolas Vigier Date: Sun, 14 Apr 2013 13:46:12 +0000 Subject: Add zarb MLs html archives --- .../20121105/35eded3e/attachment-0001.html | 122 +++++++++++++++++++++ .../attachments/20121105/35eded3e/attachment.html | 122 +++++++++++++++++++++ 2 files changed, 244 insertions(+) create mode 100644 zarb-ml/mageia-dev/attachments/20121105/35eded3e/attachment-0001.html create mode 100644 zarb-ml/mageia-dev/attachments/20121105/35eded3e/attachment.html (limited to 'zarb-ml/mageia-dev/attachments/20121105/35eded3e') diff --git a/zarb-ml/mageia-dev/attachments/20121105/35eded3e/attachment-0001.html b/zarb-ml/mageia-dev/attachments/20121105/35eded3e/attachment-0001.html new file mode 100644 index 000000000..fad5bcf08 --- /dev/null +++ b/zarb-ml/mageia-dev/attachments/20121105/35eded3e/attachment-0001.html @@ -0,0 +1,122 @@ +Hi,


On Sun, Nov 4, 2012 at 4:29 AM, andre999 <andre999mga@laposte.net> wrote:
+ +
Jehan Pagès a écrit :
+
+Hi,
+
+On Sat, Nov 3, 2012 at 11:11 PM, PhilippeDidier
+<philippedidier@laposte.net <mailto:philippedidier@laposte.net>> wrote:
+ + +
+    Jehan Pagès a écrit :
+     > Hi,
+     >
+     > I noticed we propose only the Jack2 package, but no Jack1. Yet
+    Jack2 is
+     > simply another implementation in C++ of the Jack protocol, and not a
+     > newer version (as the official website also states clearly:
+     > http://trac.jackaudio.org/wiki/Q_differenc_jack1_jack2 ).
+     >
+     > Plus I had a very annoying bug with Ardour when using Jack2, and
+    people
+     > on Ardour mailing list told me it was a known issue with Jack2 (both
+     > Ardour and Jack2 were installed from the Mageia 2 packages). I
+    compiled
+     > Jack1, and it indeed fixed the issue.
+     >
+     > So I am thinking on proposing a spec for Jack1.
+     >
+     > But then I have questions:
+     >
+     > 1/ How should I name this package? The jack2 package is named
+    "jackit"
+     > and I have no idea where you got that from (I guess this is a shorter
+     > name for "Jack Audio Connection Kit", but should we really change
+     > package names this way?
+     > It is not that long). The official alternative
+     > name of Jack2 is "jackdmp" (see README here:
+     > https://github.com/jackaudio/jack2 ). I saw nowhere else this
+    "jackit"
+     > naming.
+     >
+    We inherit this from Mandrake : in the early years of Mandrake a jack
+    package already existed but it had nothing to do with JACK (Jack Audio
+    Connexion Kit) : it was a console frontend for cd rippers, still
+    provided in Mageia...
+
+    When JACK was imported into Mandrake it had to be given an other name...
+    so jackit !!!
+    There was a tonic controversy on Mandrake forum about this in 2003 or
+    2004 year.
+    Mandrake and then Mandriva and and then Mageia are the only
+    distributions calling JACK package "jackit" ....
+     > So I am questioning the naming of this existing package, and
+    would like
+     > to propose some rename along with a new name for a Jack1 package.
+     > Maybe simply "jack1" and "jack2"? Or "jack" and "jackdmp"?
+     >
+     > 2/ How should the virtual dependency be named?
+     > The existing "jackit" spec provides a "jackit-devel" and a
+    "libjack-devel".
+     >
+     > I think that none of the names are really fit IMO. First jackit
+    for the
+     > same reason as before (I don't see where this name comes from), also
+     > libjack (and the -devel suffix) because this kit is not *only* a
+    library
+     > (there are also the jackd daemon, tools, etc.).
+     >
+     > I propose simply "jack" as virtual package name.
+     >
+     > How does this sound?
+     > Thanks.
+     >
+     > Jehan
+    Not simple because of this context ...
+    If you want to call JACK jack you need to remove first the existing jack
+    from the repo, and to modify the spec for every package requiring jackit
+    now, to make them require jack if it is the new package name for JACK .
+
+    Post Scriptum : Reading this I don't know if my explanation  is clear
+    enough ...
+    A key to understand what I wrote :
+    "jack" is the name of a package (whatever its content is)
+    "jackit" is the name of a package
+    "JACK" is the recursive acronym (Jack Audio Connexion Kit) of the
+    software you are talking about
+
+
+Ok I understood the deal.
+I would personally prefer even a longer package name like
+jack-audio-connection-kit. Mageia would gain from having clearer naming.
+Especially if we add the Jack1 alternative.
+
+Now if this is a big deal, and it generates a controversy again, it is
+not that a big deal. The question thus is: how do I call Jack1 package
+then? And can I say that this new package "Provides: jackit" so that it
+works as an alternative to Jack2 (for instance for Ardour)?
+Thanks.
+
+Jehan
+
+
+why not give jack1 the name :
+ "jack1 - the Jack Audio Connection Kit 1"
+and modify the description to include :
+ "This is the original C implementation of the Jack Audio Connection Kit protocol (JACK).  It is under active development concurrently with jackit (JACK2)"
+

I'll do this like this, then, and propose a SPEC to my mentor, maybe today.

+ + +It might also be a good idea to modify the jackit description to indicate that it is concurrent to jack1 as well.
+And maybe rename it to jack2, if it is not too complicated ?
+

I guess the maintainer of this package will have to do this. I'll search for his email.
Thanks all.

Jehan
 
+ + +We could always use provides to accommodate packages requiring JACK.
+
+Just some suggestions ...
+
+--
+André
+

diff --git a/zarb-ml/mageia-dev/attachments/20121105/35eded3e/attachment.html b/zarb-ml/mageia-dev/attachments/20121105/35eded3e/attachment.html new file mode 100644 index 000000000..fad5bcf08 --- /dev/null +++ b/zarb-ml/mageia-dev/attachments/20121105/35eded3e/attachment.html @@ -0,0 +1,122 @@ +Hi,


On Sun, Nov 4, 2012 at 4:29 AM, andre999 <andre999mga@laposte.net> wrote:
+ +
Jehan Pagès a écrit :
+
+Hi,
+
+On Sat, Nov 3, 2012 at 11:11 PM, PhilippeDidier
+<philippedidier@laposte.net <mailto:philippedidier@laposte.net>> wrote:
+ + +
+    Jehan Pagès a écrit :
+     > Hi,
+     >
+     > I noticed we propose only the Jack2 package, but no Jack1. Yet
+    Jack2 is
+     > simply another implementation in C++ of the Jack protocol, and not a
+     > newer version (as the official website also states clearly:
+     > http://trac.jackaudio.org/wiki/Q_differenc_jack1_jack2 ).
+     >
+     > Plus I had a very annoying bug with Ardour when using Jack2, and
+    people
+     > on Ardour mailing list told me it was a known issue with Jack2 (both
+     > Ardour and Jack2 were installed from the Mageia 2 packages). I
+    compiled
+     > Jack1, and it indeed fixed the issue.
+     >
+     > So I am thinking on proposing a spec for Jack1.
+     >
+     > But then I have questions:
+     >
+     > 1/ How should I name this package? The jack2 package is named
+    "jackit"
+     > and I have no idea where you got that from (I guess this is a shorter
+     > name for "Jack Audio Connection Kit", but should we really change
+     > package names this way?
+     > It is not that long). The official alternative
+     > name of Jack2 is "jackdmp" (see README here:
+     > https://github.com/jackaudio/jack2 ). I saw nowhere else this
+    "jackit"
+     > naming.
+     >
+    We inherit this from Mandrake : in the early years of Mandrake a jack
+    package already existed but it had nothing to do with JACK (Jack Audio
+    Connexion Kit) : it was a console frontend for cd rippers, still
+    provided in Mageia...
+
+    When JACK was imported into Mandrake it had to be given an other name...
+    so jackit !!!
+    There was a tonic controversy on Mandrake forum about this in 2003 or
+    2004 year.
+    Mandrake and then Mandriva and and then Mageia are the only
+    distributions calling JACK package "jackit" ....
+     > So I am questioning the naming of this existing package, and
+    would like
+     > to propose some rename along with a new name for a Jack1 package.
+     > Maybe simply "jack1" and "jack2"? Or "jack" and "jackdmp"?
+     >
+     > 2/ How should the virtual dependency be named?
+     > The existing "jackit" spec provides a "jackit-devel" and a
+    "libjack-devel".
+     >
+     > I think that none of the names are really fit IMO. First jackit
+    for the
+     > same reason as before (I don't see where this name comes from), also
+     > libjack (and the -devel suffix) because this kit is not *only* a
+    library
+     > (there are also the jackd daemon, tools, etc.).
+     >
+     > I propose simply "jack" as virtual package name.
+     >
+     > How does this sound?
+     > Thanks.
+     >
+     > Jehan
+    Not simple because of this context ...
+    If you want to call JACK jack you need to remove first the existing jack
+    from the repo, and to modify the spec for every package requiring jackit
+    now, to make them require jack if it is the new package name for JACK .
+
+    Post Scriptum : Reading this I don't know if my explanation  is clear
+    enough ...
+    A key to understand what I wrote :
+    "jack" is the name of a package (whatever its content is)
+    "jackit" is the name of a package
+    "JACK" is the recursive acronym (Jack Audio Connexion Kit) of the
+    software you are talking about
+
+
+Ok I understood the deal.
+I would personally prefer even a longer package name like
+jack-audio-connection-kit. Mageia would gain from having clearer naming.
+Especially if we add the Jack1 alternative.
+
+Now if this is a big deal, and it generates a controversy again, it is
+not that a big deal. The question thus is: how do I call Jack1 package
+then? And can I say that this new package "Provides: jackit" so that it
+works as an alternative to Jack2 (for instance for Ardour)?
+Thanks.
+
+Jehan
+
+
+why not give jack1 the name :
+ "jack1 - the Jack Audio Connection Kit 1"
+and modify the description to include :
+ "This is the original C implementation of the Jack Audio Connection Kit protocol (JACK).  It is under active development concurrently with jackit (JACK2)"
+

I'll do this like this, then, and propose a SPEC to my mentor, maybe today.

+ + +It might also be a good idea to modify the jackit description to indicate that it is concurrent to jack1 as well.
+And maybe rename it to jack2, if it is not too complicated ?
+

I guess the maintainer of this package will have to do this. I'll search for his email.
Thanks all.

Jehan
 
+ + +We could always use provides to accommodate packages requiring JACK.
+
+Just some suggestions ...
+
+--
+André
+

-- cgit v1.2.1