>> - What's frequent? > > I'd say once per week. Don't worry then. Except maybe for the next month or two, I would expect an update every 3-6 months at most and only if you want improvements. >> OK, I have to admit I've got limited experience. Let's just say I don't >> trust the Ubuntu maintainer :-) > > Heh, you can simply bug them :) Yup, last time I did that, it still took them more than 6 months to apply a trivial (and critical) patch I had for Speex (see http://jmspeex.livejournal.com/1974.html ). > Yeah, the license is a nasty issue, but it's crucial for open-source > at the same time. It not that nasty considering the two licenses are perfectly compatible. That being said, I'll try and do something about it. Any idea what extra text needs to be added to say this license OR that license. >> Euh, how about because it's only part of C99? It may not matter to you >> or ALSA, but it does for some users of Speex. > > From the POV of library, I of course agree with such workarounds. > The suggestions above are the possible clean-ups that could be > applied once after included in alsa-lib tree (again, non-urgent > issues). Again, you're free to do what you like, but I tend to think that the minor improvement in the code may not be worth diverging from the main tree. >> Well, it's in the plans, but it won't happen overnight. > > OK, for such architectures, we can disable the plugin. They are > anyway rare, so you won't be bothered. OK, but in that case, I think it would be good to include a warning at configure time along the lines of "Warning, the backup resampler will eat your audio and may make your cat deaf" :-) >> Actually, how about having the copied code as fallback in case the shlib >> isn't there? > > Yes, that's my idea, too. That is, _adding_ the configure option to > make use of libspeex. Sounds good. Jean-Marc _______________________________________________ Alsa-devel mailing list Alsa-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://mailman.alsa-project.org/mailman/listinfo/alsa-devel
