On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 6:25 PM, Fons Adriaensen<
fons@...> wrote:
>
> I'll repeat this: if dbus becomes a dependency for Jack, I will
> fork Jack.
And I'll repeat: JACK will not depend on non-POSIX interfaces for any
essential functions unless the platform requires it, which it does not
in this case.
Good grief, Fons. Get a grip. We're trying to figure out how to make a
system installed by more and more distributors can play nice with
JACK. It has nothing to do with JACK functionality, and JACK is never
going to "depend" on DBus. What more do I have to do to make this
clear?
You'd prefer that we spend whatever development time we have for JACK
on *another* plugin system for the ALSA backend, or that we just do
the simple thing and provide ./configure --with-alsa-dbus-negotiation
so that distributors can make this work if they are building a package
that is intended to run on a PulseAudio-equipped machine?
> And maybe introduce incompatible changes - once the
> first step is taken there's little reason to avoid that, and
> there are good reasons to do it.
Maybe instead of continuing to threaten a fork over every mention of
DBus, you could implement some of these changes as patches, submit to
them to the list, and see them actually get integrated and put into
use.
What more do I have to do to make it clear that JACK WILL NEVER DEPEND
ON DBus ????
_______________________________________________
Jack-Devel mailing list
Jack-Devel@...
http://lists.jackaudio.org/listinfo.cgi/jack-devel-jackaudio.org
