Pulse Audio -- Wine should have instructions on this web site

[Michael Stefaniuc]

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.

bye
	michael