[pulseaudio-discuss] [RFC] [PATCH] build-sys: Make esound bits optional
arun.raghavan at collabora.co.uk
Thu Dec 22 20:28:19 PST 2011
On Thu, 2011-12-22 at 13:35 +0000, Colin Guthrie wrote:
> '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
> Looks good.
Thanks for the review, guys -- pushed with an added post-configure
More information about the pulseaudio-discuss