________________________________ From: Kaj Ailomaa zequence@mousike.me To: pd-dev@iem.at Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2013 4:29 AM Subject: Re: [PD-dev] jack dbus?
On Wed, May 29, 2013, at 09:17 AM, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:
i dimly remember some discussion (on LAD, iirc) why having jack with d-bus enabled by default was a bad idea. maybe things have improved since then.
one of the problems of Pd i see is, that all the audio backends are linked into the main binary. so if you have a binary with jack/dbus support, you *must* install jack/dbus or you will not be able to use Pd at all (even if you don't care for audio at all).
I think the situation with jack is somewhat problematic, since there are now three variants of jack, where jack1 and jack2 both can be run as jackd - but jack1 and jack2 do not support the same stuff, and where jackdbus, while a form of jack2 is not operated the way jackd is. Perhaps it is a sign of an organizational problem within the jack community? I would really make things easier if there was only one jack. From pd point of view, I suppose one could argue there is only two forms of jack: jackd and jackdbus - would that be correct? Where jackd could be either jack1 or jack2.
It makes no difference wrt development of Pd audio/midi backend for JACK because the same backend can connect to JACK no matter which of the above implementations is being used.
Thanks for the rest of what you wrote-- I will play with jackdbus a bit here on Wheezy when I get a chance.
-Jonathan