On Fri, 2005-01-14 at 11:10 +1100, Jeff Waugh wrote: > <quote who="Colin Walters"> > > > On Fri, 2005-01-14 at 10:32 +1100, Jeff Waugh wrote: > > > > > However, I think most of the problem with the polypaudio question was > > > decision making gridlock. A few people loudly opposed it, while in > > > general it is a better replacement for something we already ship. > > > Because of the gridlock, no one wanted to do the (perhaps controversial) > > > work to make it happen. > > > > I wouldn't say that - we had agreement on the goal of removing Esound and > > replacing it with GStreamer, right? > > No, not least of which because GStreamer does not satisfy the requirements, What requirements? esound has been an optional compile-time dependency of libgnome forever. All we're doing is punting sound infrastructure to the underlying OS; they can continue to use esound if they want. > and is a lazy way of avoiding policy definition. :-) But we shouldn't be specifying "policy" here, because some OSes don't need/want esound. > Also, no one has done > the work to remove esound and use GStreamer. Right (as far as I know); but the discussion here is whether or not we agree the plan is to do that work and put this issue to an end.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part