[Bug 10495] Wine should support PulseAudio

[wine-bugs at winehq.org]

http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10495





--- Comment #117 from Ben Klein <shacklein at gmail.com>  2009-06-17 02:23:27 ---
(In reply to comment #113)
> (In reply to comment #111)
> > I don't follow the logic
> 
> That is obvious. A new technology comes along that is by many account better
> than the one before it and that build upon the previous technology. And instead
> of supporting the new technology directly you demand that users disable the new
> technology to use your software.

Obviously you do not feel you need to read a post to respond to it. This "new
technology" is not all it seems - they promised seamless support for current
ALSA apps for one.

> > Difference is that ESD and Arts daemons did not provide an ALSA compatibility
> > layer. Pulseaudio does, but it doesn't suit Wine's current needs.
> 
> So, Pulseaudio is being penalized befause it is better??? You are getting
> ridiculous here.

Twist my words as much as you like. You ignored the bit that said "doesn't suit
Wine's current needs". That means that winealsa doesn't work with Pulse's ALSA
layer through no fault of Wine.

> > Who said anything about GAMING?
> 
> Please read back the bug thread your are replying to (starting with comment
> number 4 and 7). All specific examples related to latency mentioned here were
> about gaming, first-person shooters to be exact. If you want to provide another
> example where overhead of Pulseaudio would be significant, please provide
> examples with testable use cases.

The examples of cases where low-latency are required are off-topic. We don't
need to saturate this bug with more useless situations. Just that it is known
that low-latency is important is enough.

> > This is no longer a considered a "wishlist for driver" bug; it is considered to
> > be for improvement of winealsa to talk to Pulse better.
> 
> You can consider it what you want. The bug is a feature request for adding a
> PulseAudio output driver to Wine and nothing else. Restricting Wine's ALSA
> driver to the safe subset of the API is a separate bug that has nothing to do
> with this one ( http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=18740 ).

18740 was correctly marked a duplicate - twice - as there has been no attempt
improve winealsa to be more Pulse-friendly. As a result, there is no proof that
a driver is even required.

> I will stop replying to you comments now, because you have not provided a
> single logical objection to Pulseaudio output driver besides 'I am too lazy to
> potentially have to look at it at some point later on'.

No loss of mine if you refuse to read my posts or *all of the rest of this
thread*.

(In reply to comment #115)
> Maybe the problem is that wine maintainers don't want to merge winepulse
> because they don't know what would occur once it's merged, who will maintain
> it? Who will take care of bugs opened for winepulse? What will occur if Art
> doesn't want to maintain winepulse in the future?
> 
> Of course, I am not against its merging (well, I am a simple wine user), it's a
> conjecture about the reasons of not including more sound plugins in wine.

If anything, the problem is that there is no one actively maintaining the
current audio code, and no one even submitting patches to make winealsa more
Pulse-friendly.

-- 
Configure bugmail: http://bugs.winehq.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
Do not reply to this email, post in Bugzilla using the
above URL to reply.
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are watching all bug changes.