On Sun, Mar 21, 2010 at 08:29:12PM +0000, Federico G. Schwindt wrote: > On Sun, Mar 21, 2010 at 10:31:34AM +0000, Jacob Meuser wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 03:08:01AM +0000, Jacob Meuser wrote: > > > is there any reason to not enable SDL sound always and get rid of the > > > flavor? reading the commit messages leads me to believe sound doesn't > > > work in the non-flavored package. > > > > no replies, so I guess there's no reason not to use SDL by default > > and disable audio(4)? > > if audio works fine with sdl, i don't see any reason not to. > > > ok? > > untested but looks correct. one comment below:
I haven't tested it either, but, why would the SDL flavor exist if it doesn't work, and why would the commit messages say native audio doesn't work? reading the SDL and audio(4) backends, I'm pretty sure SDL will not only work on more hardware, but is more "correct". the audio(4) backend doesn't check what format is actually being used, but the SDL one does (and SDL does conversions, and since SDL already uses sndio(7), it can support pretty much everything via aucat). > > diff -N -u -p pkg/PLIST > > --- pkg/PLIST 15 Sep 2004 00:42:04 -0000 1.3 > > +++ pkg/PLIST 21 Mar 2010 10:26:26 -0000 > > @@ -1,6 +1,8 @@ > > @comment $OpenBSD: PLIST,v 1.3 2004/09/15 00:42:04 espie Exp $ > > -bin/readdisk > > -bin/uae > > +...@pkgpath emulators/uae,sdl > > +...@pkgpath emulators/uae > > do you really need to specify the default one? afaik, yes, but pkg_crete(1) isn't 100% clear: "When ports get renamed, or flavors change, extra @pkgpath annotations can help pkg_add get a sense of continuity." since it says "extra", I'm guessing a single @pkgpath would override the default. -- jake...@sdf.lonestar.org SDF Public Access UNIX System - http://sdf.lonestar.org
