<html> <head> <base href="https://bugs.freedesktop.org/" /> </head> <body> <div> <a class="bz_bug_link bz_status_REOPENED " title="REOPENED --- - PulseAudio 3.0 requires Alsa >=1.0.24.1 but checks for >=1.0.19" href="https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=62865#c3">Comment # 3</a> on <a class="bz_bug_link bz_status_REOPENED " title="REOPENED --- - PulseAudio 3.0 requires Alsa >=1.0.24.1 but checks for >=1.0.19" href="https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=62865">bug 62865</a> from <a class="email" href="mailto:tanuk@iki.fi" title="Tanu Kaskinen <tanuk@iki.fi>"> Tanu Kaskinen</a> <pre>Users of released (and thus more or less frozen) distribution versions aren't our target audience. If they were, we couldn't depend on any software that was newer than five years or so. (How long are RHEL releases, for example, supported by Red Hat?) Users are expected to get new PulseAudio versions when they upgrade their operating systems. I can see how this is a problem for you, if you want to distribute PulseAudio directly (skipping the distribution middle-man) to your users, but you aren't prepared to distribute also all of PulseAudio's dependencies in a similar manner. I don't like this situation either - I'd like to target users directly, but that's just too much of a hassle. I wish Zero Install (<a href="http://0install.net/">http://0install.net/</a>) or something like it would really take off. Anyway, if you write a patch for relaxing the alsa-lib version requirement, I don't think there's much reason for me to reject it. Just don't expect me to write that patch. I'm using Debian testing myself, BTW, and it has libasound2 1.0.25-4, so your information about Debian unstable's alsa-lib version is outdated.</pre> </div> <hr> You are receiving this mail because: <ul> <li>You are the QA Contact for the bug.</li> <li>You are the assignee for the bug.</li> </ul> </body> </html>