[pulseaudio-discuss] installing header files
pshirkey at boosthardware.com
Mon Aug 10 12:25:51 PDT 2009
On 08/11/2009 05:09 AM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> On Mon, 10.08.09 17:58, Patrick Shirkey (pshirkey at boosthardware.com) wrote:
>>> Yeah I guess a default install will probably not install 32 bit libs.
>>> I doubt that is any different in other distros either. We did have
>>> specific deps added for our flash package (typically run as a 32 bit
>>> processes - it's only recently gone native as you know).
>> Yes. But it is much more stable then the 32 bit version on my system
>> even though it is in beta phase.
>> Can I humbly suggest to the various distro packagers that monitor this
>> list to ensure that the 32 bit libs are installed by default for a
>> desktop system?
> Hmm? Why?
> I am pretty thankful that my Fedora 64 installations installs no 32bit
> cruft by default.
You are very much a power user. The people who are most badly affected
by the missing libs are not. Why should distributions cater to your
needs specifically. you are in a very clear minority and are more than
capable of fixing anything that doesn't work for you out of the box?
> Nowadays there are only 2 reasons why one would want to keep a 32bit
> env around: Skype and WINE. The former is closed source and broken
> anyway. The latter we don't install by default, but if you install it
> will pull in the necessary deps.
> So I really see no reason why we should ship a 32bit env in fedora by
>>> This is true, but it's more about knowing how 64 and 32 bit systems
>>> work together. Even before pulse there needed to be a 32 bit version
>>> of libasound for things to work. Now we need a 32 bit libpulse (and a
>>> 32 bit alsa->pulse plugin) so things aren't so very different than
>>> they used to be in all honesty. I don't think anything major went
>>> wrong in your case, just some bizarre hiccups that were compounded to
>>> become rather confusing overall. I suspect most users would not have
>>> been so unlucky (otherwise we'd see far more questions on this list :))
>> Possibly or maybe many people just don't understand what is going on and
>> instead just remove pulse audio from their systems. I have seen
>> innumerable recommendations on every major distro forum, skype forums,
>> realplayer forums and various blogs and mailing lists to do so while i
>> have been testing the system over the past couple of months.
> That Skype is a mess is not really anything free software folks can do
> anything about. It's closed source. The Linux version is barely
> maintained and does about everything wrong that it can do wrong. I
> know that some folks believe that Skype's incompat with PA is my
> problem. But quite frankly, it is not. It's Skype's problem.
It's not actually. It's the users problem because when they use skype
they can't use pulseaudio. Unless of course they have a second sound
device such as a usb phone. I personally do have one and maybe it should
be recommended as the correct way to use skype on a Linux Audio system.
> Also, Realplayer? Why would anyone want to use that?
I understand where your coming from but I think it's a crossover issue
more than anything. People want to use what tehy are comfortable with
and if there is a choice between realplayer and mplayer a lot of people
will choose realplayer. BTW, the BBC has been recently credited with
single handedly resurrecting online sales and significantly contributing
to a decrease in music piracy in the UK and this is only because of
their commitment to streaming technology with realplayer as their
platform of choice.
Skype has is the most secure voip system in the world. In fact it is so
secure that even the CIA has put a couple billion dollars bounty on a
reliable method to tap it. It's still the most popular voip solution in
the world and there is only one way we can use it on Linux.
I agree that these should not be your problems to deal with but
packaging things in a way that makes it very difficult for "normal"
users to have a workable audio system doesn't help audio on the desktop.
I'm sure you are well aware of the amount of bad publicity that pulse
audio gets on the net right now and I personally think that it can be
Boost Hardware Ltd
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the pulseaudio-discuss