On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 5:15 PM, Giulio Paci <[email protected]> wrote: > Il 08/08/2013 22:53, Sergei Golovan ha scritto: >> Why "tcl-snack | tcl-snack-alsa" is bad for you? > > Because all the programs that use snack will have to add all the backends as > alternatives, in order to support them. > Right now there are only two backends and there has not been any activity > upstream since a long time, so it is unlikely that there will be any other > backends in the near > future, but the situation may change.
I guess, after there will be the third backend, say for pulseaudio, I'll split out the ALSA and OSS dependent libraries into libsnack-oss and libsnack-alsa (and libsnack-pulseaudio for the third one) and make tcl-snack depend on all of them as alternatives. For now "tcl-snack | tcl-snack-alsa" seems good enough for me. -- Sergei Golovan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
