Le dimanche 20 juillet 2008 à 16:05 -0500, Jason D. Clinton a écrit :
Loïc, you offered to NMU this package here:
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=422590
This vastly improves the Gnome sound situation. Hope we can
get this in for
On Sat, Jul 19, 2008 at 6:13 PM, Jason D. Clinton [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 9:21 AM, Loïc Minier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Jun 17, 2008, Martin Pitt wrote:
That's interesting indeed! So you avoid that by using an OSS driver
instead of the ALSA one? I can
On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 9:21 AM, Loïc Minier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Jun 17, 2008, Martin Pitt wrote:
That's interesting indeed! So you avoid that by using an OSS driver
instead of the ALSA one? I can really not imagine how esound on top of
a broken ALSA driver would sound better
Christian Perrier writes (Re: Non-related 'Recommends' dependencies - bug or
not?):
So, well, in such case, closing with I think this is not a bug
because synaptic is recommended by another package in the dependency
chain would have been better. Even better would have been to
investigate
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
Am Mo den 16. Jun 2008 um 6:25 schrieb Martin Pitt:
esound should *so much* die completely. It has very poor sound quality
I cannot prove that. Its sound quality is much better than the one of
ALSA direct. (Well esd on top of OSS. It is not
Hi Klaus,
Klaus Ethgen [2008-06-17 10:12 +0100]:
I cannot prove that. Its sound quality is much better than the one of
ALSA direct. (Well esd on top of OSS. It is not that good than with OSS
direct but it is ok.)
Hm, that rather sounds like for your card the OSS driver is much
better than the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Dear Martin,
Am Di den 17. Jun 2008 um 11:50 schrieb Martin Pitt:
Klaus Ethgen [2008-06-17 10:12 +0100]:
I cannot prove that. Its sound quality is much better than the one of
ALSA direct. (Well esd on top of OSS. It is not that good than with
Klaus Ethgen [2008-06-17 14:06 +0100]:
The alternative to esound is not really ALSA, but rather pulseaudio.
Is pulsaudio supported by applications like wine for example? Do
pulsaudio work on top of OSS?
pulseaudio provides an esound ABI compatibility layer, thus it's a
drop-in replacement.
On Tue, Jun 17, 2008, Martin Pitt wrote:
That's interesting indeed! So you avoid that by using an OSS driver
instead of the ALSA one? I can really not imagine how esound on top of
a broken ALSA driver would sound better than just using the ALSA
output directly?
It might normalize which
Le mardi 17 juin 2008 à 14:06 +0100, Klaus Ethgen a écrit :
OSS: Works well.
OSS-ESD: Works well too.
ALSA: The problems above.
ALSA-ESD: I never really tested.
Last time I checked, libesd-alsa0 was still completely unusable (well,
except for some weird kind of sound-based torture).
--
On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 10:12:52AM +0100, Klaus Ethgen wrote:
Am Mo den 16. Jun 2008 um 6:25 schrieb Martin Pitt:
very poor code quality
That might be. But that's a problem of many gnome applications.
To be quite honest, I've seen the code for esd, and it is terrible.
In fact, worse than
On Tue, 17 Jun 2008 17:44:23 +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Last time I checked, libesd-alsa0 was still completely unusable (well,
except for some weird kind of sound-based torture).
I regularly help users to find out why their sound has stopped working,
and the cause is usually due to
(d-qa CCed because of the status of esound; please CC me on replies)
On Friday 13 June 2008, you wrote:
There are plenty of other examples. Here's a few of my favorites (look
up what packages depend on these libs yourself):
- libadns1 - libadns1-bin (test tools/utils)
- libdjvulibre21 -
Frans Pop [2008-06-15 20:39 +0200]:
Also, the package has had uploads of new upstream versions to Ubuntu
without getting similar uploads in Debian, but even there not by its
Debian maintainer who AFAIK is an Canonical employee.
esound should *so much* die completely. It has very poor sound
Quoting Steve Greenland ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
On 12-Jun-08, 13:57 (CDT), Eugene V. Lyubimkin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Bug was closed by maintainer with note it is not a bug. Is he right?
Banshee's maintainer isn't (and can't) be responsible for other packages
recommends.
Not blaming
Le vendredi 13 juin 2008 à 07:18 +0200, Christian Perrier a écrit :
Yes, that takes time, but it's certainly worth it. As package
maintainers, our source of information are users and we really should
appear as slapping the nice people who care to report bugs...
+1
This would stand in
On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 12:15:59AM +0300, Eugene V. Lyubimkin wrote:
Thanks, you hinted me to discover it:
$ aptitude why banshee synaptic
p banshee Recommends brasero
p brasero Recommends gnome-mount
p gnome-mount Dependslibeel2-2.20
p libeel2-2.20 Recommends
Lennart Sorensen a écrit :
On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 12:15:59AM +0300, Eugene V. Lyubimkin wrote:
Thanks, you hinted me to discover it:
$ aptitude why banshee synaptic
p banshee Recommends brasero
p brasero Recommends gnome-mount
p gnome-mount Dependslibeel2-2.20
p
Le vendredi 13 juin 2008 à 16:03 +0200, Jean-Christophe Dubacq a écrit :
I think at most synaptic deserves a suggests in that case.
I am absolutely not sure of myself, but I think this is due to the new
missing plugins installation procedure that launches synaptic to
install new packages if
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hello all.
Recently I've noticed that 'Recommends' chain for package 'banshee' leads to
packages,
non-related with media-playing at all, for example, 'synaptic'. Then I filed
the minor bug
[1].
Bug was closed by maintainer with note it is not a
On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 09:57:13PM +0300, Eugene V. Lyubimkin wrote:
Recently I've noticed that 'Recommends' chain for package 'banshee' leads to
packages,
non-related with media-playing at all, for example, 'synaptic'. Then I filed
the minor bug
[1].
Bug was closed by maintainer with
On 12-Jun-08, 13:57 (CDT), Eugene V. Lyubimkin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Bug was closed by maintainer with note it is not a bug. Is he right?
Banshee's maintainer isn't (and can't) be responsible for other packages
recommends.
It looks like the bug is in libgstreamer-plugins-base0.10-0 which
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Lennart Sorensen wrote:
On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 09:57:13PM +0300, Eugene V. Lyubimkin wrote:
Recently I've noticed that 'Recommends' chain for package 'banshee' leads to
packages,
non-related with media-playing at all, for example, 'synaptic'.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Steve Greenland wrote:
On 12-Jun-08, 13:57 (CDT), Eugene V. Lyubimkin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Bug was closed by maintainer with note it is not a bug. Is he right?
Banshee's maintainer isn't (and can't) be responsible for other packages
Eugene V. Lyubimkin wrote:
libgstreamer-plugins-base0.10-0 is only suggests gnome-app-install.
I've found the actual chain:
p libeel2-2.20 Recommends synaptic
To me this definitely looks wrong.
In general libs should be extremely careful about using Recommends for
applications,
Frans Pop wrote:
Dependencies should in principle be top down, not bottom up. And
defining dependencies from libs to apps is almost per definition bottom
up.
As a nice experiment (you need testing or unstable's aptitude for this):
% aptitude search '?section(^libs)
On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 12:31:22AM -0400, Felipe Sateler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
was heard to say:
Frans Pop wrote:
Dependencies should in principle be top down, not bottom up. And
defining dependencies from libs to apps is almost per definition bottom
up.
As a nice experiment (you need
27 matches
Mail list logo
