[Bug 10495] Wine should support PulseAudio

[wine-bugs at winehq.org]

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

--- Comment #277 from Ben Klein <shacklein at gmail.com> 2010-12-08 09:01:11 CST ---
(In reply to comment #274)
> since pulseaudio cannot be removed in ubuntu 10.10 anymore, winealsa is using
> pulse device instead of dmix/dsnoop.

In that case, Wine cannot officially provide support for Ubuntu users,
especially in light of the apparent removal of dsound support from winepulse.

(In reply to comment #276)
> Colleagues, come on! There's no point in writing here blaming wine devs - their
> position had been made clear years ago and it looks like there are no signs of
> the possible changes in the near feature.

True. This is mostly because no one is willing to do the work needed to make
pulse Wine-friendly (or vice versa) in terms of upstream inclusion.

> Fact is that wine devs team simply don't like pulse and that's it.

For technical reasons; not petty as you imply.

> Instead of
> following the way to be more compatible with mainstream linux distros they
> prefer to turn the world upside down and disagree to call Fedora, Mandriva,
> Ubuntu and all other distros using Pulse out there "the mainstream".

Like it or not, pulse uses ALSA as a backend on ALL of those systems.
pulseaudiod actually needs libalsa, not just the ALSA kernel drivers, to
function (or the equivalent in OSS or whatever other system is being used).
Given that there are distros that do not ship pulse by default but require ALSA
instead, ALSA is therefore MORE mainstream than pulse, not to mention more
feature-complete for low latency applications, and also - most importantly -
better supported by existing software, including but not limited to Wine. 

> Trying to argue with them leads to the threats that "this bug will be closed as
> INVALID, end of discussion". 

No; trying to argue like that leads people to point out that the only people
pushing for winepulse to be included upstream are those who do not understand
the technical issues involved.

> So take it simple: they don't like pulse, they don't use pulse, they have no
> intentions to support pulse in Wine. They simply refuse to do it, and that's
> it. 

I don't like jack, or esd, or arts, or OSS (at least, not prior to OSS4), and I
do not use any of them except for ALSA emulation of OSS. Would I refuse to
write an application that did not support any of those at all? Possibly, in the
cases of esd and arts, but, definitely not in the case of OSS and maybe jack,
depending on the application's purpose. In fact, if it was simple enough, I'd
implement a pulse module myself. The fact of the matter is it's not simple or
it would have been done years ago.

> The only way one may take to get proper support of pulse in wine is to do it
> himself out of the official wine tree.

This is not "proper support". Bug reports when out-of-tree patches are in play
are by definition INVALID, as are AppDB reports.

> It would be more productive to spend the
> energy on maintenance of the winepulse patch instead of writing here trying to
> persuade wine devs that their software should run on the linux desktops well.

Wine runs fine on desktops. It's not Gnome or KDE or whatever's fault that
distros have been shipping with a system that is incompatible with Wine.

-- 
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.