On Tue, 2017-01-10 at 22:23 -0600, Hajime Fujita wrote: > Hi Tanu and Anton, > > > On Jan 10, 2017, at 5:57 PM, Tanu Kaskinen <tanuk at iki.fi> wrote: > > > > On Thu, 2017-01-05 at 22:34 +0100, Anton Lundin wrote: > > > On 06 November, 2016 - Hajime Fujita wrote: > > > > > > > This patch set adds a support for UDP version of RAOP (so called > > > > raop2). Most of the RAOP devices (e.g. AppleTV, AirportExpress, > > > > third party AV receivers) today use UDP version, so this patch > > > > set is expected to support those devices. > > > > > > > > > > I've took a close look at the non-raop changes and those LGTM. > > > > > > Feel free to add a Reviewed-by: Anton Lundin <glance at acc.umu.se> to them > > > if you feel for it. > > > > > > I've tested and glanced at the raop-code and it ain't perfect but its > > > way better than the current code for anything modern, so I'd suggest > > > merging this. > > > > > > Feel free to add a Tested-by: Anton Lundin <glance at acc.umu.se> to them > > > if you feel for it. > > First, thank you Anton for taking a look at this patch set and supporting merging it. > > > > > Thanks, I pushed the three core-util patches to the "next" branch. I > > started to apply the rest of the patches too, but the first raop patch > > failed to build: > > > > CC modules/raop/module_raop_sink_la-module-raop-sink.lo > > modules/raop/module-raop-sink.c: In function â??udp_thread_funcâ??: > > modules/raop/module-raop-sink.c:724:19: error: too many arguments to function â??pa_rtpoll_runâ?? > > if ((rv = pa_rtpoll_run(u->rtpoll, true)) < 0) > > ^~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > In file included from ./pulsecore/source.h:41:0, > > from ./pulsecore/core.h:49, > > from ./pulsecore/sink.h:33, > > from modules/raop/module-raop-sink.c:44: > > ./pulsecore/rtpoll.h:61:5: note: declared here > > int pa_rtpoll_run(pa_rtpoll *f); > > ^~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > Makefile:9124: recipe for target 'modules/raop/module_raop_sink_la-module-raop-sink.lo' failed > > > > Maybe that's fixed in later patches, but for bisecting it's best to > > avoid commits that break the build. > > I thought I have fixed this before, but apparently it was incomplete. Sorry about that. It should have been fixed as you suggested. > > > I also tried to build the whole patch set, but Debian has updated to > > openssl 1.1.0, and at the time when these patches were submitted, we > > didn't yet have the patch that fixes the compatibility issue with > > openssl 1.1.0, so that failed too. Trying to apply both the openssl fix > > and the raop patches results in conflicts. > > > > These issues should be easy enough to resolve, and if there's nothing > > more complicated, I'll fix the issues myself and push the patches. > > Thatâ??ll be awesome. > But if you need my help Iâ??d be more than happy to do so. And so ends this journey of several years... I pushed these patches to the "next" branch now. Thank you all for your work and patience! -- Tanu https://www.patreon.com/tanuk
