Re: jack 0.75 mini-freeze
> Do we have a plan how to handle this with future JACK packages ?
> I think that it would be better to include the strict dependency rules
> in the packages instead of forcing them by the naming scheme of
> the JACK libraries. Several of the packages that rely on JACK only
> use a subset of its API, and therefore work across several releases.
> Others don't (e.g. those including the transport API), they have to depend
> on specific libjack versions.
I've got an impression that by the time we actually get this release in,
we are probably going to be looking at 0.90, which should be more stable, and
then we'll probably be looking at 1.0, which should be two more
ABI changes; which isn't too bad.