drew Roberts wrote: > On Sunday 01 November 2009 07:43:14 Rui Nuno Capela wrote: >> what doesn't make sense, to me at least, is having two (or more) >> qjackctl instances running against the _same_ jack server. if you do >> that, it will be just a waste of resources and prone to confusion and >> race conditions that you should avoid at all times. again, the single >> instance restriction is just to enforce that wasteful and redundant >> scenario won't happen easily. > > Rui, here is one example of why you might want such a thing to be possible. > > Say I am at work, I start up qjackctl and start jack. I go home. From home I > find I have a need to check something, make some changes, whatever to the > machine at work. I ssh -X in and run qjackctl. The one I left running at work > is still running, but I want the new one to connect to the same jack that is > running at work so that I can do what I need from home. Granted, there may be > issues as to which config trumps which on exit but at least I can make the > changes I need. I guess the other option would be to kill the current > qjackctl at work before kicking off the one over the tunnel. Thoughts? this is something i'm doing regularly, too. killing the existing qjackctl is not feasible, since jack would be killed along with it, bringing down the entire session. _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-user mailing list Linux-audio-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-user
