'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. Col -- Colin Guthrie gmane(at)colin.guthr.ie http://colin.guthr.ie/ Day Job: Tribalogic Limited http://www.tribalogic.net/ Open Source: Mageia Contributor http://www.mageia.org/ PulseAudio Hacker http://www.pulseaudio.org/ Trac Hacker http://trac.edgewall.org/
