April 2002 - Wine-Devel - list.winehq.org

Re: ALSA driver

by Duane Clark

Eric Pouech wrote: > the point is not whether 0.5 is technically better than 0.9 (or the > other > way around). The point is on the current installed base of ALSA drivers > in the field, how many are 0.5 and how many are 0.9. > Mandrake and Suse (at least) have been shipping 0.5 for more than one > year, whereas 0.9 is brand new. Perhaps not quite brand new, at least in "computer years" ;) In any case, I think that it is not unreasonable to expect someone wanting to run wine with sound to install 0.9. Relative newbies might get a bit of a shock at having to recompile their kernels to get ALSA. But I think many users, well at least me, would be rather disappointed at being expected to run 0.5 (assuming that would be required). ...just my opinion though.

April 20, 2002

Re: ALSA driver

by Eric Pouech

Marco Pietrobono a écrit : > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > On Sat, 20 Apr 2002, Eric Pouech wrote: > > > after Gav and Ove clarified the license details, lets go back to the > > technical bits > > this driver is against ALSA 0.5 interface. It will provide the bare bone > > wave part, but not yet the mixer part nor the MIDI. Moreover, it should > > also support the mmap interface (this was part of the code that needed > > to be checked and revisited, and David should be looking into this) > > well, this seems a good start nevertheless. > > I've just a little doubt. From what I've understood from the alsa-devel > list, it seems that the ALSA 0.5 has been declared dead almost officially. > They are not supporting it anymore, more over they are actively pushing > the new 0.9 interface and library. IIRC, they want to get out a rc1 next > week, or like. see my answer to Joërg about this. > BTW, It's been quite a while that I'm using ALSA 0.9, so I can try to > port your code to it. ok, but keep both 0.5 and 0.9 inside and also protect 0.9 code when only the 0.5 headers will be available. A+

April 20, 2002

Re: ALSA driver

by Eric Pouech

> Sigh, Suse 8.0 just moved fom 0.5 to 0.9 - the Alsa developers regard > 0.9 as more stable and having less bugs than 0.5. Why spend all that > time on an obsolete driver? OK, that is mostly the disappointment speaking > that I still won't be able to run wine with Alsa. the point is not whether 0.5 is technically better than 0.9 (or the other way around). The point is on the current installed base of ALSA drivers in the field, how many are 0.5 and how many are 0.9. Mandrake and Suse (at least) have been shipping 0.5 for more than one year, whereas 0.9 is brand new. It just means that 0.9 installed base is almost 0 (in percentage). So, spending time right now on 0.9 is not the top priority (at least for me). OTOH, since the OSS emulation in ALSA 0.5 is broken, the point is whether we fix it (using a pure ALSA 0.5 driver in Wine), or let users live with that (TG has disabled the HAL support in dsound just because of that and it's a PITA) A+

April 20, 2002

su to root failure in wineinstall

by Thomas Hardman

Wine build complete. Performing 'make install' as root to install binaries, enter root password Password: /bin/bash: - : unrecognized option Either you entered an incorrect password or we failed to run 'make install' correctly. If you didn't enter an incorrect password then please report this error to wine-devel(a)winehq.com. Installation failed, aborting. earthops:/usr/src/wine-20020411$ -- T. Jr. Hardman thardman(a)earthops.org

April 20, 2002

Re: ALSA driver

by Marco Pietrobono

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Sat, 20 Apr 2002, Eric Pouech wrote: > after Gav and Ove clarified the license details, lets go back to the > technical bits > this driver is against ALSA 0.5 interface. It will provide the bare bone > wave part, but not yet the mixer part nor the MIDI. Moreover, it should > also support the mmap interface (this was part of the code that needed > to be checked and revisited, and David should be looking into this) well, this seems a good start nevertheless. I've just a little doubt. From what I've understood from the alsa-devel list, it seems that the ALSA 0.5 has been declared dead almost officially. They are not supporting it anymore, more over they are actively pushing the new 0.9 interface and library. IIRC, they want to get out a rc1 next week, or like. BTW, It's been quite a while that I'm using ALSA 0.9, so I can try to port your code to it. [snip] > then, an ALSA final should be written. As the ALSA interface has greatly > evolved between 0.5 and 0.9, the ongoing ALSA driver will need to be > rewritten for ALSA 1.0 (aka final). Until Linux 2.6 is out, there will > be no need for ALSA 1.0, as most of the current distros ship with either > OSS or ALSA 0.5. I'm not so sure. It seems that the next versions of SuSE and Mandrake will contain ALSA 0.9, I don't know Red Hat plans on this one, as well as others' but I can check... bye, /pietrobo - -- Stud. Marco Pietrobono | Murphy's Law: if something could v. del Calice, 39 - 00178 ROMA | go wrong, it does. Tel. +39.6.7186329 0339.7410893 | Legge di Murphy: se qualcosa può http://www.pietrobo.com | andar male, lo farà. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Strange game. The only winning move is not to play. What about a nice play of chess ? -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.4 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE8wamUJdpOg6vRQxoRAoyZAJ9kiYZ0AWGhbY8n4Lg33HJWGaaaZACeIUeB W9eGTd5p3tS9CGY5dv+nS3Y= =PdnE -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

April 20, 2002

Re: ALSA driver

by Joerg Mayer

> then, an ALSA final should be written. As the ALSA interface has greatly > evolved between 0.5 and 0.9, the ongoing ALSA driver will need to be > rewritten for ALSA 1.0 (aka final). Until Linux 2.6 is out, there will > be no need for ALSA 1.0, as most of the current distros ship with either > OSS or ALSA 0.5. Sigh, Suse 8.0 just moved fom 0.5 to 0.9 - the Alsa developers regard 0.9 as more stable and having less bugs than 0.5. Why spend all that time on an obsolete driver? OK, that is mostly the disappointment speaking that I still won't be able to run wine with Alsa. Ciao Jörg -- Joerg Mayer <jmayer(a)loplof.de> I found out that "pro" means "instead of" (as in proconsul). Now I know what proactive means.

April 20, 2002

Re: ALSA driver

by Eric Pouech

Marco Pietrobono a écrit : > > Hi, > > I'm starting to work on a native ALSA driver for wine. Since I > remember that Marcus was working (or was planning to work) an that one > too, I would like to know if there is already something to work on or to > contribute to, or if I need to start from scratch. > > If there is nothing already written, I would like to discuss what kind > of approach we should use with ALSA programming, since FWIK there should > be two way to use it: we can use the ALSA devices directly, just like it > has been done with OSS, or we can use the alsalib to avoid all direct > references to the kernel devices and ioctl, but this solution will add a > dependency on the alsalib library itself to wine. Of course, we could > add a configure option/check to allow its use at compilation time, > but... after Gav and Ove clarified the license details, lets go back to the technical bits this driver is against ALSA 0.5 interface. It will provide the bare bone wave part, but not yet the mixer part nor the MIDI. Moreover, it should also support the mmap interface (this was part of the code that needed to be checked and revisited, and David should be looking into this) basically, this would allow to turn on mmap (which greatly enhances the dsound playback quality) on all soundcards (some OSS emulations for ALSA don't allow a correct mmap on the OSS mmap interface, so directly using the ALSA mmap interface should take of it) work will still be done on the installation stuff (basically, the registry must be written with either ALSA or OSS driver, depending on the installed interface on Linux) then, an ALSA final should be written. As the ALSA interface has greatly evolved between 0.5 and 0.9, the ongoing ALSA driver will need to be rewritten for ALSA 1.0 (aka final). Until Linux 2.6 is out, there will be no need for ALSA 1.0, as most of the current distros ship with either OSS or ALSA 0.5. A+

April 20, 2002

bug?

by Rikard Björklind

Hi, I tried to use ./tools/wineinstall: Performing 'make install' as root to install binaries, enter root password Password: [here I wrote the password] /bin/bash: - : unrecognized option What's wrong?

April 20, 2002

Wine server request serialization IS broken

by Laurent Pinchart

Hi, I finally manage to understand where the problem comes from. And unfortunately there's a pretty serious inter process communication problem. CreateProcess waits until the child process initialization is done. This is handled by the server, which receives a init_process_done request from the child process, and then 'wakes' the parent process. My parent process calls SetThreadContext right after CreateProcess returns. Unfortunately, that's done in the middle of a wine server call from the child process (after it has sent the init_process_done request, but before he has read the reply). This causes some other server calls to be made, and a desynchronization to occur. I'll try to have a look at the code to find a way to fix that. As I don't have a global view of all the wine architecture, I'll probably forget a lot of side effects, so I'd appreciate very much if someone more experienced than me could give me a few advices. Thanks in advance. Laurent Pinchart

April 20, 2002

Re: ALSA driver

by Ove Kaaven

On Fri, 19 Apr 2002, Gavriel State wrote: > Ove Kaaven wrote: > > On 19 Apr 2002, Marco Pietrobono wrote: > > > > > >> I'm starting to work on a native ALSA driver for wine. Since I > >>remember that Marcus was working (or was planning to work) an that one > >>too, I would like to know if there is already something to work on or to > >>contribute to, or if I need to start from scratch. > > > > You must be mistaken, Eric Pouech was working on the ALSA driver. This > > driver is also pretty much complete, just bugfixes remain. Unfortunately, > > it's currently in the cold slimy clutches (from the LGPL-Wine perspective) > > of TransGaming staff, who might not want to part with it without getting > > some of that glorious LGPL code in Wine relicensed in exchange... > > Actually, we have no official claim over the ALSA driver - we offered to > sponsor Eric Poech's development, but he asked that we put it into another > sponsorship instead. Hmm. I guess some of my attempts at humor failed here... I never said that Eric had given us the code or that he couldn't submit it to wine if he wanted to, only that someone at transgaming was trying to finish it, so my message isn't strictly untrue, just very badly presented... I expected Eric to explain the real situation himself, but I suppose I can try to not add to the confusion in the future... > It is true though that TransGaming's David Hammerton 'has his clutches' on > the code - he's been working on it with Eric in his spare time. That said, > I just checked and while his hands are kind of cold, they didn't appear > to be at all slimy. Not even after lunch? > David said that he might try to check it into the ReWind tree this weekend. OK.

April 19, 2002