Pulse Audio -- Wine should have instructions on this web site
truiken at gmail.com
Wed Apr 2 13:59:58 CDT 2008
On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 1:52 PM, Michael Stefaniuc <mstefani at redhat.com> wrote:
> James Hawkins wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 1:05 PM, Austin English <austinenglish at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 10:08 AM, Bryan Haskins <ryuzaki90 at 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."
More information about the wine-devel