Re: jack 0.94.0-2
On Fri, 27 Feb 2004, Robert Joerdens wrote:
> So if for example hydrogen is removed from testing during a libjack
> transition, it can _not_ stay installed anymore and will be removed by apt,
> if all libjacks conflict with each other (or depend on a versioned
> jackd, what comes out to be the same).
>
> That would be a regression which can be quite disturbing because users
> of testing might wonder, why their packages get deinstalled. Or am I
> predicting a wrong behaviour of apt's algorithm here?
Taking into account that theoretically all applications that support
jack in a given (reasonabley stable) system will support the same
version (ABI-wise), I think we could live with ppl having to update their
whole jack - system, not just a part.
I consider it more important to not have a conflicting client-server
protocol. See it like this:
jackd and libjack are a pair that has to go together, its like a
shared library split into to halfs, and only the same versions fit.
It would even make sense to put them into one package. I see
no reason to install libjack and not the corresponding deamon or vice
versa.
.. and it solves a lot of headaches for users.
So I vote for linking them ...
>
> Even if we accept the regression, to me it seems more reasonable to let
> libjack depend on a versioned jackd; might even allow for finer control.
> BTW: How would a "Recomends: jackd (= version)" influence apt's
> behaviour WRT removing other packages?
AFAIK recommends do not influence apt.
.. anyhow, I think Junichi can comment on this (to lazy to think right now
:)
Guenter
Reply to: