Re: status of jackd? (bug #318098)
On Tue, Aug 09, 2005 at 07:28:07PM -0700, Erik Steffl wrote:
> repeat: note that I am not complaining about c++ abi changes etc.,
> that can't be avoided, I think. I was specifically talking about
> _unneccessary_ problems that get weeks to fix for unknown reasons like
> jackd bug #318098 (perhaps there is a good reason for it, don't know).
So you're complaining that this jackd bug is exemplary of "unneccessary"
breakages in unstable, and yet you don't even know if there is a good
reason for this bug. You don't know if this is tied to the gcc change.
Do you have any other examples of these unnecessary changes that you assert
are happening but shouldn't? This time with rationale to explain why
they're so unneccessary beyond "unstable is the only thing useful for
desktops" please.
- David Nusinow
Reply to: