On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 12:44:39AM +0100, Federico G. Schwindt wrote: > On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 07:15:19AM +0000, Jacob Meuser wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 12:43:36AM +0000, Jacob Meuser wrote: > > > 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? > > > > so, has anyone tested this yet? > > > > > 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). > > In principle it works. I've only tested it using the RSI demo and I've > found some crashes but I doubt they're related to your diff. That said, I'd > like to test it a bit more.
I can reproduce the crashes without sdl, so I guess this is OK. I will see if I can update the port later. FWIW, audio works without sdl as well. f.-
