> > >> 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
... I also guess no one is stopping people from writing a pulseaudio driver. Its just that it needs to make certain criteria before inclusion, after we got burned with esound, arts, nas, etc etc etc etc. Ciao, Marcus
