david wrote: > cal wrote: >> david wrote: >>> [ ... ] >>> I am running the jackd that my distro provides - 0.109.2. >>> >>> No why distros don't include a newer version eludes me ... >> Indeed. You're not the first and won't be the last to ask that. Last time >> this came up in the context of yoshimi, Josh Lawrence had a fairly elegant solution. >> <http://lists.linuxaudio.org/pipermail/linux-audio-user/2009-September/063063.html> > > OK, tracked down the 64studio backports, and checked. It has JACK > 1.9.2-0.64studio2~lenny1. That doesn't sound like 0.116.etc ... ah, but it is in fact very much like 0.116 etc, see <http://www.jackaudio.org/node/24> >> That thread also featured a strong comment: >> jackaudio.org notes that "nobody should be using 0.109 at this point in time". >> >> This is the modern age after all. > > This makes me ask the question, "What are the JACK developers NOT doing > that is keeping their recommendation from replacing .109 with .116 in > repositories, then?" Other programs got it done somehow ... That's so far off the mark I really have to leave it alone. _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-user mailing list Linux-audio-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-user
