On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 00:52:46 -1000 david <gnome@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > hollunder@xxxxxx wrote: > > On Mon, 09 Nov 2009 23:01:59 -1000 > > david <gnome@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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 ... > > > > It isn't, it's jack2, formerly known as jackdmp. > > > >>> 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 was almost a year ago. (and it feels like three years) > > > >> 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 ... > > > > It seems distributions are simply too slow, especially debian based > > ones. At least that's my impression. > > Weird, but other programs (general use ones) seem to be much closer > to "current" versions than JACK is. I wonder if there isn't some > hoop-jumping jackaudio hasn't done properly for Debian. Or maybe the > Debian folk in charge of approving JACK versions for inclusion in > Debian worship at the altar of Pulseaudio and just want to make JACK > go away. (I know, nobody involved in open source would be > deliberately sabotaging a competitor.) There also seems to be a long-standing issue with jack in debian, they messed p some naming years ago and didn't manage to fix to date and this causes some issues as well. I don't know the details tough. I don't know what the source of all this trouble is, but pretty much all distros get it right. There's was an interesting post: http://ardour.org/node/2543 > > Don't quite get it in the case of 64studio where jack is an > > essential part. Guess they focused on the next version before > > bothering with that. > > Possible. I can't install the DVD releases of 64Studio on my music > box - its optical drive doesn't seem reliably read all of a DVD - and > while it will boot from a flash drive, I haven't found any Linux > audio distros that will install from a flash drive. They all insist > on looking for an install CD. And nobody seems to make netboot > installs anymore except Debian's stock distro. This is a pity, especially since flash drives get bigger than DVDs. Haven't really looked into it, but it would seem logical for a number of reasons to move from DVD to flash, not the other way around. Regards, Philipp _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-user mailing list Linux-audio-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-user
