Sylvain Petreolle wrote:
Couldnt we stop to maintain the 0.9 part since 1.0 is almost out ?
no, because it's not because 1.0 is out that all installed boxen on
earth with 0.9 will instantaneously be upgraded to 1.0.
We should at least drop the 0.5 part since its no longer supported by
the ALSA de
Sylvain Petreolle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Couldnt we stop to maintain the 0.9 part since 1.0 is almost out ?
No, most people are still using 0.9.
> We should at least drop the 0.5 part since its no longer supported by
> the ALSA developpers.
That doesn't mean no one is using it.
--
Alex
Couldnt we stop to maintain the 0.9 part since 1.0 is almost out ?
We should at least drop the 0.5 part since its no longer supported by
the ALSA developpers.
> Well, I'm not sure that's really necessary at this point. The 0.9
> code
> builds just fine, and IMO we can simply wait until supporting
Sylvain Petreolle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The current code works with today alsa cvs if I use the ALSA_PCM_OLD*
> defines, no problem at all.
> The goal of my patch is to make us use the new API.
> When the 1.0 state will be reached, the 0.9 API will be considered
> deprecated (like the alre
--- Alexandre Julliard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit :
> Only if it's still needed. My understanding of the ALSA_PCM_OLD
> defines is that this shouldn't be the case, the current code should
> work fine on 1.0. Do you still have problems with it?
To answer your question :
The current code works wi
Dimitrie O. Paun wrote:
On December 8, 2003 04:38 pm, Christian Costa wrote:
Well, I will have soon some Wave In stuff to submit.
Should I wait alsa 1.0 support is added?
No need to wait, as Alexandre pointed out already,
our code should compile with alsa 1.0.
Ok. Fine.
Thanks
Christia
On December 8, 2003 04:38 pm, Christian Costa wrote:
> Well, I will have soon some Wave In stuff to submit.
> Should I wait alsa 1.0 support is added?
No need to wait, as Alexandre pointed out already,
our code should compile with alsa 1.0.
--
Dimi.
Sylvain Petreolle wrote:
Hi,
My winalsa patch for alsa 1.0 support wasnt commited and there
wasnt any feedback fo it. Another winealsa patch was commited after
that,
should I resubmit mine ?
References :
http://www.winehq.org/hypermail/wine-patches/2003/11/0342.html
http://www.winehq.org/hypermai
Sylvain Petreolle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> My winalsa patch for alsa 1.0 support wasnt commited and there
> wasnt any feedback fo it. Another winealsa patch was commited after
> that,
> should I resubmit mine ?
Only if it's still needed. My understanding of the ALSA_PCM_OLD
defines is that t
Hi,
My winalsa patch for alsa 1.0 support wasnt commited and there
wasnt any feedback fo it. Another winealsa patch was commited after
that,
should I resubmit mine ?
References :
http://www.winehq.org/hypermail/wine-patches/2003/11/0342.html
http://www.winehq.org/hypermail/wine-patches/2003/12/00
10 matches
Mail list logo
