Re: [Jack-Devel] [PATCH] Jack-1: jack_port_by_name

On January 22, 2015 06:25:05 PM Adrian Knoth wrote:
> Hi!
> 
> > +    echo "Be sure THIS installation is found first in your system's"
> > +    echo "executable and library paths. Currently some distros such as"
> > +    echo "Debian (or Ubuntu etc) may incorrectly set the library path."
> 
> What exactly is wrong with Debian's library path? I see a couple of
> problems with this wording:
> 
>    * "currently" - this message is going to stay, so will be outdated. It
>      doesn't even say what "currently" means.
> 
>    * "may incorrectly set" - well, is it wrong or not?
> 
>    * "some distros" - too vague
> 
> > +    echo "Please contact your distribution packager for JACK and"
> > +    echo "ask them to fix their packaging."
> 
> Since I'm said packager: tell me what's wrong.
> 
> > +    echo "If you KNOW WHAT YOU ARE DOING and are sure you want to
> > proceed,"
> > +    echo "run ./configure with --enable-force-install"
> 
> If you go this route, maybe add "Promise not to ask for help if things
> break."
> 
> I'll leave the rest of your patch to Paul, since I haven't worked on
> jackd for a year now.
> 
> 
> Cheers

Well, look, I was trying to keep the 'spirit' of the original message
 without upsetting too much whoever wrote the original,
 while trying to provide some useful pointers.
Have you seen the original message? If not, read it.
 
I am speaking as someone trying to test a manual installation of 
 Jack-1 along side a packaged installation of Jack-2.
But perhaps the original author was referring to the actual
 Jack-1 distro package not setting the lib path correctly,
 perhaps that was the thrust of his message.

The original message singled out Debian and variants, 
 but I have seen other distros with this problem.
Which is, they don't include /usr/local/lib in /etc/ld.so.conf
My current distro (KUbuntu) did not include it.
So really I don't know exactly how many others don't do it.
I think it's better not to name names at all, just tell users to 
 check because the path might not be there.
And what if the user chooses some install location other than
 /usr/local/lib? The user would have to manually edit ld.so.conf 
 and exe paths anyway. This is probably what the message should 
 really be saying.

I wrote 'may' because I could swear sometimes when I install
 this distro (many times) the path (usr/local/lib) is there.
Maybe when I build other software that uses say, CMake,
 it is automatically done. Maybe not.
I carefully considered what to write there, and figured better
 to say 'may' because who knows, maybe the path IS there.

You can put the message back to the original.

The whole point is, please let people proceed with the installation,
 instead of just exiting. The original message said proceeding was 
 supposed to be possible, but it wasn't. So I'm not radically altering 
 anything, just fixing a bug in the message.

Whaddya say folks? Does the rest of the patch look OK?

Thanks.
Tim.

1422063250.14606_0.ltw:2, <4053750.z0lNksUPQ4 at col-desktop>