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

[James Hawkins]

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."
-Julliard

http://winehq.org/pipermail/wine-devel/2008-March/063755.html

-- 
James Hawkins