On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 1:52 PM, Michael Stefaniuc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > James Hawkins wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 1:05 PM, Austin English <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 10:08 AM, Bryan Haskins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > I'm more interested in a direct pulseaudio gateway for Wine... since by > >> > application sound control is the biggest thing here for most > people.... wine > >> > is treated as one big audio blob. Pulse sees it as one thing. In > effect, > >> > wine handles it's own audio (by talking with ALSA or OSS) then passes > that > >> > through to the outside sound server... which in most cases would > simply be > >> > ALSA or OSS itself, but in this case it gets passed to ALSA/OSS and > through > >> > this talks to pulse. I call that pretty messy when we could just > directly > >> > talk to pulse audio (easily, too) and have by applications control. > Pulse is > >> > going to be in pretty much every distro soon. For a 1.0 release, no one > >> > wants to go out of their way to accomodate the shortcomings of our > audio > >> > control. > >> > > >> > Even directly sending the blobof output to pulse directly at first > would > >> > simplify things. I know this means yet asnother audio output method to > >> > maintain, and for various reasons many are against it. But this is > similar > >> > to us needing to improve ALSA support rather recently. Pulseaudio does > >> > directly support ALSA, but it's a bit demanding on how it need to work > to be > >> > perfect. > >> > > >> > ALSA, Pulseaudio, and OSS are probably the big three we need support > for. > >> > Pulse is a drop in replacement for things like Network Sound, and way > easier > >> > to configure and use. > >> > > >> > Sorry for expanding the topic so much. > >> > > > > >> > > >> This has been brought up before, and it's quite a bit of work. You > >> can't just simply forward everything to pulse call it a day, you'd > >> need to implement a full structure/drivers/etc., which would require > >> quite a bit of time/work and is likely outside of the scope of 1.0. > >> > > > > And I believe Julliard rejected the idea of adding a pulseaudio driver. > Nope! He isn't against a pulseaudio driver. He is against yet another > broken and half implemented driver for the desktop sound system that > happens to be en vogue at the moment. > > I think he would love to see a clean, full implemented pulseaudio > driver; presented in a nice easy review-able patch series which cleans > up the wineaudio driver mess en passant. >
"No, the right answer is to make the Alsa driver work right. We need to stop rushing out to write a new driver every time there's a problem with an existing one, all it leads to is more broken drivers." -Julliard http://winehq.org/pipermail/wine-devel/2008-March/063755.html -- James Hawkins
