Hi,
the esound package is full of bugs, many of which have been fixed
upstream, and the last upload was almost 3 years ago.
Unless there are any valid objections, I intend to hijack the esound
package, to be maintained in the GNOME team’s repository.
Cheers,
--
.''`.
: :'
Le dimanche 20 juillet 2008 à 16:05 -0500, Jason D. Clinton a écrit :
> Loïc, you offered to NMU this package here:
> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=422590
>
> This vastly improves the Gnome sound situation. Hope we can
> get this in for L
an OSS driver
>> > instead of the ALSA one? I can really not imagine how esound on top of
>> > a broken ALSA driver would sound better than just using the ALSA
>> > output directly?
>>
>> It might normalize which sampling rate / sample width is used
>
On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 9:21 AM, Loïc Minier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 17, 2008, Martin Pitt wrote:
> > That's interesting indeed! So you avoid that by using an OSS driver
> > instead of the ALSA one? I can really not imagine how esound on top of
>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
All I know is on my stripped down computer with no speakers (except
for the boot beep beeper), I asked myself: why can I dpkg-purge
esound-clients, but then if I do apt-get dist-upgrade (vs.
dselect-upgrade), it gets installed back again?
Well it turns out esound
All I know is on my stripped down computer with no speakers (except
for the boot beep beeper), I asked myself: why can I dpkg-purge
esound-clients, but then if I do apt-get dist-upgrade (vs.
dselect-upgrade), it gets installed back again?
Well it turns out esound-clients is depended on by libesd0
On Tue, 17 Jun 2008 17:44:23 +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Last time I checked, libesd-alsa0 was still completely unusable (well,
> except for some weird kind of sound-based torture).
I regularly help users to find out why their sound has stopped working,
and the cause is usually due to libes
On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 10:12:52AM +0100, Klaus Ethgen wrote:
Am Mo den 16. Jun 2008 um 6:25 schrieb Martin Pitt:
very poor code quality
That might be. But that's a problem of many gnome applications.
To be quite honest, I've seen the code for esd, and it is terrible.
In fact, worse than al
Le mardi 17 juin 2008 à 14:06 +0100, Klaus Ethgen a écrit :
> OSS: Works well.
> OSS<-ESD: Works well too.
> ALSA: The problems above.
> ALSA<-ESD: I never really tested.
Last time I checked, libesd-alsa0 was still completely unusable (well,
except for some weird kind of sound-based torture).
--
On Tue, Jun 17, 2008, Martin Pitt wrote:
> That's interesting indeed! So you avoid that by using an OSS driver
> instead of the ALSA one? I can really not imagine how esound on top of
> a broken ALSA driver would sound better than just using the ALSA
> output directly?
It migh
Klaus Ethgen [2008-06-17 14:06 +0100]:
> > The alternative to esound is not really ALSA, but rather pulseaudio.
>
> Is pulsaudio supported by applications like wine for example? Do
> pulsaudio work on top of OSS?
pulseaudio provides an esound ABI compatibility layer, thus
that good than with OSS
> > direct but it is ok.)
>
> Hm, that rather sounds like for your card the OSS driver is much
> better than the ALSA one. But OSS/ALSA both live below the application
> level (where esound/pulseaudio/arts reside).
Well, yes.
> > I just see that issu
tter than the ALSA one. But OSS/ALSA both live below the application
level (where esound/pulseaudio/arts reside).
> > (huge A/V desync when playing videos, etc.),
>
> I just see that issues when using ALSA. So please drop ALSA and not ESD.
On the vast majority of systems out there,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
Am Mo den 16. Jun 2008 um 6:25 schrieb Martin Pitt:
> esound should *so much* die completely. It has very poor sound quality
I cannot prove that. Its sound quality is much better than the one of
ALSA direct. (Well esd on top of OSS. It is
Hi Martin,
Thanks for replying.
Martin Pitt wrote:
> esound should *so much* die completely. It has very poor sound quality
> (huge A/V desync when playing videos, etc.), very poor code quality
> (it causes complete desktop locks very often, due to not being thread
> safe), and
Frans Pop [2008-06-15 20:39 +0200]:
> Also, the package has had uploads of new upstream versions to Ubuntu
> without getting similar uploads in Debian, but even there not by its
> Debian maintainer who AFAIK is an Canonical employee.
esound should *so much* die completely. It has
On Tue, Dec 03, 2002 at 09:13:52PM -0800, Ryan Murray wrote:
> This is an ABI change, and as ALSA 0.5 is still the stable release, (and
> the only one that seems to work for me) I don't want to change it yet.
Well, what Ryuichi said... ALSA people don't support 0.5 anymore. In any
case, I guess it
It would be useful if someone would package the current
esound program. The esound package maintainer has clearly
expressed his lack of interest in doing so.
esound2 anyone?
--
Thomas Hood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
(Please cc: me if you reply this message.)
Ok, I understand what your thinking. I will not do NMU.
However, I don't think only ALSA 0.5 is stable release. The current
ALSA is also enough stable for sid ("unstable" release) users. So I
believe the upload of esound with libas
On Wed, Dec 04, 2002 at 01:48:12PM +0900, Ryuichi Arafune wrote:
> any objections?
This is an ABI change, and as ALSA 0.5 is still the stable release, (and
the only one that seems to work for me) I don't want to change it yet.
> As in #170923, we have newer version of esound.
(Please cc me when you reply this message.)
Hello all,
As I said in Bug#170915, I would like to do NMU for esound package
built with libasound2.
I send the mail one week ago, but the current maintainer have not
replied any more.
any objections?
As in #170923, we have newer version of
Enlightened Sound Daemon (EsounD version 0.2)
This provides sound tools that are used by the new Enlightenment, as well
as possibly the new Gnome.
--
Scott K. Ellis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.gate.net/~storm/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subj
22 matches
Mail list logo
