I would totally agree with that, James. If ALSA worked perfectly, it's really no problem getting it working "OOB" with Pulse, no specific sound system needed.
On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 2:59 PM, James Hawkins truiken@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 1:52 PM, Michael Stefaniuc mstefani@redhat.com wrote:
James Hawkins wrote:
On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 1:05 PM, Austin English <
austinenglish@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 10:08 AM, Bryan Haskins ryuzaki90@gmail.com
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