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)"
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 ?
We could always use provides to accommodate packages requiring JACK.
Just some suggestions ...
--
André