why isn't pulseaudio in the [extra] repository?

SyXbiT · 2008-08-09 19:20:14

Hopefully I'm not stepping on toes, but PulseAudio is clearly the future of sound in Linux, and should definitely be an official package in [extra].
I thought the [community] repository was for stuff that's not so central to a good GNU/Linux experience.

thoughts?

Pierre · 2008-08-09 19:31:42

PulsAudio might sound cool on the paper, but who really needs streaming audio in realtime over network and such features? I might be wrong, but I think most desktop users don't really need pulseaudio.

jdhore · 2008-08-09 19:49:53

Sadly, PulseAudio needs A LOT of work to become Desktop-ready. Also...It's in community...That's almost as good as Extra

freakcode · 2008-08-09 20:30:25

SyXbiT wrote:

Hopefully I'm not stepping on toes, but PulseAudio is clearly the future of sound in Linux

I wouldn't make those claims without data to backup it

SyXbiT wrote:

, and should definitely be an official package in [extra].
I thought the [community] repository was for stuff that's not so central to a good GNU/Linux experience.
thoughts?

I guess it's simple: if a lot of people uses PulseAudio, it goes extra. Or if something starts depending on it, let's say, Gnome, then it probably would go extra too. But the fact that it's in extra or community doesn't change much, really.

Dheart · 2008-08-09 21:18:41

I'll have to disagree... Pulseaudio is not the future - If I needed a pro audio software I'd use jack audio, and if I needed per application volume control I'd use (as I do in the moment) oss4...
Just my 2 cents, though... many people could find it useful, but for me the future is OSS4 or Jack.

SyXbiT · 2008-08-09 22:51:24

let me correct my statement
PulseAudio is IMHO the future of sound in Linux.
part of my 'proof' is the fact that most of the top distros on distrowatch have it included by default (please don't argue about whether distrowatch's figures are accurate. maybe they aren't, but there's no doubt that Fedora and Ubuntu are used byt more people than Arch)
With Ubuntu & Fedora etc.. behind it, it's very likely that it will improve a lot and soon.
p.s. i haven't read much about oss4, but wikipedia says the following
"OSS is the standard up through the 2.4 series of official (kernel.org) Linux kernels. ALSA was added starting with 2.5, and in those versions, Linux kernel authors marked OSS as deprecated. 4Front continued to develop OSS outside of Linux kernel."

surely the fact that OSS is now continued ourside the kernel makes things harder. Since pulse integrates well with ALSA, things are easy

Last edited by SyXbiT (2008-08-09 22:58:52)

Gullible Jones · 2008-08-09 23:38:14

OSS is the standard for *nix operating systems other than Linux. As such, most applications support it.

Garns · 2008-08-09 23:54:48

SyXbiT wrote:

let me correct my statement
PulseAudio is IMHO the future of sound in Linux.
part of my 'proof' is the fact that most of the top distros on distrowatch have it included by default

Ubuntu includes Gnome by default - Arch doesn't
Ubuntu inclues Compiz by default - Arch doesn't
Ubuntu includes a weird brown colortheme by default - Arch doesn't
.
.
.
Ubuntu includes a bunch of other crap I don't need by default - Arch doesn't

If you look careful you will notice a pattern...

BTT: First, I'm not really interested in the soundsystem, I start my music player, music comes out of my headphone and I hear music. My interest in the sound system stops right there. I'm quite happy with ALSA in this regard. It does actually make music come out of my headphones .

Ok that's just me, I know someone out there might have a different opinion, no problem with that. Let's say he wants to use this pulseaudio thing. It is in [community] so he can go install it configure it and use it, he doesn't even have to compile it. So I think he is very well set.

DISCLAIMER: I'm not bashing Ubuntu, I have nothing against Ubuntu. If you feel Ubuntu is treated unfair in this post, please replace it with a distro of your choice.

whargoul · 2008-08-10 00:42:12

I have to agree with Dheart about OSS4. It sounds more promising that PulseAudio and ALSA. Also, I have heard that ALSA is a pain in the ass to work with, and many developers dislike working with it.

Oh and why PulseAudio isn't in [extra]? Properly because there isn't any high demands from users such as myself.

Last edited by whargoul (2008-08-10 00:44:04)

venky80 · 2008-08-10 01:39:38

how do i install OSS4?

iphitus · 2008-08-10 02:35:36

It's on the wiki venky, I installed OSS yesterday.

Last edited by iphitus (2008-08-10 02:35:52)

INCSlayer · 2008-08-10 06:59:45

i agree with garns could not care less

also on a side note you have a very nice new avatar iphitus

orion · 2008-08-10 11:04:36

uhm, as an former fedora user i say: PulseAudio is PAIN! Fedora included it early in version 8, which is good for development, but bad for users. I used PulseAudio, and now I use OSS, and really: I don't needed any function of Pulse. Yes it's "the Future", but really: Including it as "standard" is too much future

Comparing Arch with (for example) Ubuntu is, like comparing an homebrew pc with a (for example) dell computer. The dell computer comes with all the fancy stuff like card readers, remote comtrol, preinstalled software and Windows and stuff and you don't really know what's inside, until you look at the Technical specs. You know every component of a homebrew computer, because you built it for yourself, and you can have optimal performance for your purposes, because you've selected the components on your own.

What i wanna say: It's good that Arch gives me the choice to use Pulseaudio, and don't makes me to use it. Thats why i use arch, instead of fedora and ubuntu. For every taste, there is a distribution . If i someday need Pulse, i will install it. and i don't think it matters if pulse is in community or in extra, and i don't think that arch should orientate on what other "major" distributions do, but rather go his own, pretty unique way.

Last edited by orion (2008-08-10 11:05:24)

dolby · 2008-08-10 11:33:59

http://bugs.archlinux.org/task/10202
http://bugs.archlinux.org/task/8472
http://bugs.archlinux.org/task/8360

Arch Linux

#1 2008-08-09 19:20:14

why isn't pulseaudio in the [extra] repository?

#2 2008-08-09 19:31:42

Re: why isn't pulseaudio in the [extra] repository?

#3 2008-08-09 19:49:53

Re: why isn't pulseaudio in the [extra] repository?

#4 2008-08-09 20:30:25

Re: why isn't pulseaudio in the [extra] repository?

#5 2008-08-09 21:18:41

Re: why isn't pulseaudio in the [extra] repository?

#6 2008-08-09 22:51:24

Re: why isn't pulseaudio in the [extra] repository?

#7 2008-08-09 23:38:14

Re: why isn't pulseaudio in the [extra] repository?

#8 2008-08-09 23:54:48

Re: why isn't pulseaudio in the [extra] repository?

#9 2008-08-10 00:42:12

Re: why isn't pulseaudio in the [extra] repository?

#10 2008-08-10 01:39:38

Re: why isn't pulseaudio in the [extra] repository?

#11 2008-08-10 02:35:36

Re: why isn't pulseaudio in the [extra] repository?

#12 2008-08-10 06:59:45

Re: why isn't pulseaudio in the [extra] repository?

#13 2008-08-10 11:04:36

Re: why isn't pulseaudio in the [extra] repository?

#14 2008-08-10 11:33:59

Re: why isn't pulseaudio in the [extra] repository?

Board footer