Hello!
[Mon, 25 Aug 2003] Jack O'Quin wrote:
> But, we have actually done a rather good job on binary compatibility.
> It pains me to get no credit for this. With only a few exceptions,
> most JACK releases in the past year or two *have* been binary
> compatible with the older versions.
We all know how hard it is to maintain a compatible interface while
still developing. It is a rare exception that a developer team even
announces that they do not provide binary compatibility. Most of the
time they don't notice that they break it... ;-]
We didn't have so many releases of JACK. You can follow its history
under (you can even subscribe to its development news and bugreports,
hint, hint ;-):
http://packages.qa.debian.org/j/jack-audio-connection-kit.html
IIRC most of these releases actually have been binary incompatible.
> The new transport features and the amd64 sized int work we are doing
> *are* binary compatible with previous releases to a very high degree.
Does "high degree" mean "everywhere except the old transport functions
failing and JACK breaking compatibility on AMD64"? I guess that sounds
very reasonable.
> If I were a Debian user (which I am) relying on .deb packages for JACK
> (which I'm not), I would want you to treat these releases as
> compatible except in the rare cases they are known not to work.
> Nando's Planet CCRMA site has been distributing binary RPM packages
> for JACK this way all year. He has a large user following in the
> Linux Audio community and a well-deserved reputation for solid,
> reliable packages. Many of these applications (I'd guess 40 or 50)
> depend on JACK. Very few problems have been reported; none that I can
> recall.
He is doing it all by himself. He can recompile his stuff whenever he
wants to and everyone will install his newly compiled applications
because they all use his repository.
> Thanks for your patience thus far. ;-)
Thanks for your great work!
Robert.
Attachment:
pgph9NeS2h6iM.pgp
Description: PGP signature