Comment 298 for bug 371897

If I have followed the discussion correctly ...

(In reply to comment #191)
> I don't want to start any flame but here is a bit unclear between the huge
> amount of (very) detailed answers and is not easy to udnerstand the real
> reasons why.
> Is it because:
> *) patch code is of bad quality
The patch does not meet AJ's quality standards, and no one seems to want to fix this.

> *) patch is buggy
Not as far as I know.

> *) patch doesn't conform coding standard
See above.

> *) patch is incomplete
Yes, I believe so.

> *) pulse is present only in Linux and not on other architectures
No. pulse is cross-platform.

> *) current wine devs/mantainers don't want to mantain this piece of code even
> if it's well written and works?
If it's well written and works, then there would be little objection to this as required maintenance would be low. So far, no one has put their hand up to 1) fix the code standard, 2) prove that winepulse is 100% necessary and 3) maintain a fixed and proven version of the module long-term.

(In reply to comment #192)
> In the end it comes down to wine developers don't like having so many audio
> backends in the tree, and so don't want another committed to it.

No. What it comes down to is no one has proven programatically that winealsa can't be made to work with pulse's ALSA emulation.