[pulseaudio-discuss] [RFC] [PATCH] build-sys: Make esound bits optional
gmane at colin.guthr.ie
Thu Dec 22 05:35:28 PST 2011
'Twas brillig, and Maarten Bosmans at 21/12/11 21:50 did gyre and gimble:
> 2011/12/21 Arun Raghavan <arun.raghavan at collabora.co.uk>:
>> IMO EsounD is really quite irrelevant on most modern systems today, and more
>> so for embedded systems.
>> Any objections to making it optional?
> No, seems fine.
> I'd go for HAVE_ESOUND though just to keep it consistent with the rest.
> As seen in Makefile.am as a conditional or in source files as a macro,
> the semantics of the symbol for esound are not different from those
> for e.g. solaris. It just determines whether a certain piece of code
> gets compiled or not.
> The only place where esound is different from the others is in
> configure.ac. But even here we have already lost a precise link
> between HAVE_SOLARIS and the availability of the solaris headers. As
> when --disable-solaris is passed to configure, HAVE_SOLARIS=0 even
> when the headers are available.
> So it's probably better to be consistently imprecise with our variable
> naming than to introduce a new name prefix.
Yeah what Maarten said :D
Tribalogic Limited http://www.tribalogic.net/
Mageia Contributor http://www.mageia.org/
PulseAudio Hacker http://www.pulseaudio.org/
Trac Hacker http://trac.edgewall.org/
More information about the pulseaudio-discuss