[PD-dev] jack dbus?

Jonathan Wilkes jancsika at yahoo.com
Wed May 29 17:42:52 CEST 2013

 From: Kaj Ailomaa <zequence at mousike.me>
To: pd-dev at 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.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.puredata.info/pipermail/pd-dev/attachments/20130529/0106a173/attachment.htm>

More information about the Pd-dev mailing list