Date: Wed, 20 Dec 1995 09:57:30 -0600
From: Jim Lowe <james@miller.cs.uwm.edu>
Message-Id: <199512201557.JAA01757@miller.cs.uwm.edu>
To: jkh@time.cdrom.com, multimedia@rah.star-gate.com
Subject: Re:  Ehm. Uh, just what *is* the state of the sound driver in 2.2 and 2.1?
Cc: cvs-committers@freebsd.org
Sender: owner-cvs-committers@freebsd.org
Precedence: bulk

> From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com>
> 
> Sorry for asking such general questions, but I really am sort of in
> the dark these days as to the state of FreeBSD's official sound
> development ("official" == "what's checked into CVS").  Many a few
> words from Jim as to what he's got planned?
> 
I have been holding off on integrating or changing the stuff for
integration until the staticizing, prototyping, devfsing, etc... was
complete.  There were a lot of changes in the sound (and other drivers)
recently.  Usually by the time I sup'ed up the sound area and started
patching it, someone made a change to it.  I have been less inclined to
do a sup of -current since it seems to have destabilzed in the past week.

There was a question raised by alain@Wit401402.student.utwente.nl.  Should
we look at the NetBSD stuff and nuke the Linux stuff or just continue on
with the Linux stuff to be compatible?  To tell you the truth, I don't know
what the answer to that would be.  There are advantages and disadvantages
to boths sides of that argument, but I think it should be considered by
everyone who is interested in sound/multimedia.

Maybe the best approach would be to use whatever drivers we feel comfortable
with and creating an api to be compatible with the other version of the sound
drivers.  I would be very interested in other thoughts on an api, sound
drivers and other ideas.  Perhaps a discussion on the multimedia list would
be in order.

> I notice, in fact, that there's not even really anybody penciled in
> for "/sys/i386/isa/sound" in FreeBSD. :-(
> 
> It'd really be nice if somebody (with commit privileges) just sort of
> stepped forward to "own" that directory, and by "own" I don't
> necessarily mean "drive the unofficial development" (it seems there
> are plenty of folks doing that just fine already) I mean "take
> responsibility for the bits in tree and decide when the time is ripe
> to take in updates (or when things are too broken to live without
> them)."

Gee, I thought that was you Jordan :-).

	-Jim