[Jack-Devel] same jack version, but different protocol versions (revisited)

PrevNext  Index
DateTue, 02 Dec 2014 00:11:27 +0200
From Athanasios Silis <[hidden] at gmail dot com>
ToDevelopers JACK <[hidden] at lists dot jackaudio dot org>
Follow-UpAdrian Knoth Re: [Jack-Devel] same jack version, but different protocol versions (revisited)
Hello everyone,
It appears that running jack master - clients across different
architectures has some bug (at least version wise).
I have a problem running the jack_master in linux and the jack_client in
windows, but I see that recently this was still a problem between macOS and
windows (master & client respectively). See
http://jack-audio.10948.n7.nabble.com/same-jack-version-with-different-protocols-td18002.html

I, too, am running jack 1.9.10 in the server

nass@starkill:~/dev/jack-1.9.10/common$ jackd -V
jackdmp 1.9.10
Copyright 2001-2005 Paul Davis and others.
Copyright 2004-2013 Grame.
jackdmp comes with ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY
This is free software, and you are welcome to redistribute it
under certain conditions; see the file COPYING for details
no message buffer overruns
no message buffer overruns
no message buffer overruns
jackdmp version 1.9.10 tmpdir /dev/shm protocol 8

on windows I, too, run (as client) jack v1.9.10 with -dnet (netjack2) :

d:\Program Files (x86)\Jack>jackd.exe --version
jackdmp 1.9.10
Copyright 2001-2005 Paul Davis and others.
Copyright 2004-2014 Grame.
jackdmp comes with ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY
This is free software, and you are welcome to redistribute it
under certain conditions; see the file COPYING for details
Drivers/internals found in : C:\Windows
Drivers/internals found in : C:\Windows
jackdmp version 1.9.10 tmpdir server protocol 8

now on the jack_master the message appears:

Error : slave 'stardome' is running with a different protocol 8 != 7
Can't init new NetMaster...
Waiting for a slave...

So even though both jacks are v1.9.10, the netjack2 protocols differ.

I did not see a reply in that thread (first post was on May 2014, some
other guy still had the problem sep 2014), so I'll have to ask: has this
error been acknowledged? Is there a solution?

thank you in advance for your help.
PrevNext  Index

1417471911.20879_0.ltw:2, <CADgchnv60bXhdCh2q6cBzPbz459jW9Gj84vk254Uo9SFgLannw at mail dot gmail dot com>