> On Jan 12, 2017, at 7:46 PM, Tanu Kaskinen <tanuk at iki.fi> wrote: > > 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! Awesome! Thank you for your patience as well. So I guess this is going to be in the 11.0 release? > > -- > Tanu > > https://www.patreon.com/tanuk <https://www.patreon.com/tanuk> > _______________________________________________ > pulseaudio-discuss mailing list > pulseaudio-discuss at lists.freedesktop.org <mailto:pulseaudio-discuss at lists.freedesktop.org> > https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/pulseaudio-discuss <https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/pulseaudio-discuss> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/pulseaudio-discuss/attachments/20170112/08d95c93/attachment-0001.html>
