Hi,
I finally manage to understand where the problem comes from. And
unfortunately there's a pretty serious inter process communication problem.
CreateProcess waits until the child process initialization is done. This is
handled by the server, which receives a init_process_done request from
Hi, I tried to use ./tools/wineinstall:
Performing 'make install' as root to install binaries, enter root password
Password: [here I wrote the password]
/bin/bash: - : unrecognized option
What's wrong?
Wine build complete.
Performing 'make install' as root to install binaries, enter root password
Password:
/bin/bash: - : unrecognized option
Either you entered an incorrect password or we failed to run
'make install' correctly.
If you didn't enter an incorrect password then please report
Sigh, Suse 8.0 just moved fom 0.5 to 0.9 - the Alsa developers regard
0.9 as more stable and having less bugs than 0.5. Why spend all that
time on an obsolete driver? OK, that is mostly the disappointment speaking
that I still won't be able to run wine with Alsa.
the point is not whether 0.5
Marco Pietrobono a écrit :
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sat, 20 Apr 2002, Eric Pouech wrote:
after Gav and Ove clarified the license details, lets go back to the
technical bits
this driver is against ALSA 0.5 interface. It will provide the bare bone
wave part,
Eric Pouech wrote:
the point is not whether 0.5 is technically better than 0.9 (or the
other
way around). The point is on the current installed base of ALSA drivers
in the field, how many are 0.5 and how many are 0.9.
Mandrake and Suse (at least) have been shipping 0.5 for more than one
On Sat, Apr 20, 2002 at 09:40:31PM +0200, Eric Pouech wrote:
OK, that is mostly the disappointment speaking
that I still won't be able to run wine with Alsa.
The point is on the current installed base of ALSA drivers
...
It just means that 0.9 installed base is almost 0 (in percentage).
On Sat, Apr 20, 2002 at 09:42:12PM +0200, Eric Pouech wrote:
BTW, It's been quite a while that I'm using ALSA 0.9, so I can try to
port your code to it.
ok, but keep both 0.5 and 0.9 inside and also protect 0.9 code when only
the 0.5 headers will be available.
I don't think that this is
But I think
many users, well at least me, would be rather disappointed at being
expected to run 0.5 (assuming that would be required).
I don't object having a 0.9 driver at all.
But I consider today having a 0.5 is more important than a 0.9 (even
if it's for a short (1 year ?) period of time)
I don't think that this is the right way. IMHO, there should be one 0.5
and current alsa module for wine - they really have different apis.
They have common features and an almost identical name, but that's it.
It would be cleaner to copy you code completely into a separate alsa-0.9
( or
Eric Pouech [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
yes an no. since we don't have a proper install (and detection)
mechanism
in wine, I was more leaning to having a single ALSA driver, that would
compile into 0.5 or 0.9 (depending on the headers found on the system).
That's the best solution assuming
11 matches
Mail list logo
