http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10495
--- Comment #212 from Immanuel elmano@gmx.at 2010-02-13 09:45:05 --- (In reply to comment #211)
The argument is that there is no evidence that winealsa cannot be improved sufficiently to work well with Pulse. Until such evidence is presented, a separate winepulse driver is unlikely to be considered.
This argument is about as much bs as possible. 1) noting seems to have moved forward in this direction although I remember various changelogs claiming better support for alsa-pulse in the changelog. So either it would be really hard to fix or the wine-alsa code is just too ugly to look at so nobody dares to touch it. 2) if your argumentation is true, why is there an wine-alsa in the first place? alsa also has a wrapper for OSS. has anybody ever "programmatically proven" that this is not compatible? 3) there is a perfectly working solution (for me) with a maintainer and everything. what more can an open-source project wish for?
Wine was originally intended as a tool for porting win32 apps to unix-likes. Should we abandon libwine apps just because most people use Wine to run native win32 apps?
nobody said that, what's your point?