From: Al Dimond <businessmanprogrammersteve@gm...> - 2009-11-19 21:53:42
I noticed a bug specifically in a change to our local PortAudio tree.
Are we intentionally keeping our PortAudio different from upstream?
The specific change I'm talking about is revision 1.12 of
lib-src/portaudio-v19/src/hostapi/alsa/pa_linux_alsa.c. I assume it's
OK to fix that here in the Audacity tree, and as it pertains to a
struct member that doesn't exist upstream it's meaningless to send
them a patch, but do we generally send patches like that of revision
From: Richard Ash <richard@au...> - 2009-11-21 22:30:24
On Thu, 2009-11-19 at 14:54 -0700, Al Dimond wrote:
> I noticed a bug specifically in a change to our local PortAudio tree.
> Are we intentionally keeping our PortAudio different from upstream?
We have the portmixer-required change set in ours, which they haven't
yet picked up, mainly because they are very short of maintainers and
won't commit anything submitted without a largely hypothetical
maintainer OKing it. I keep proding this every year or so, and they
usually don't actually achieve anything - their mailing list generates
very heated discussions but rarely any comitted code.
As a resulkt we cary their SVN (they don't really do releases either)
plus a variable local patchset. For details of how we (mostly I) manage
that patchset, see the file lib-src/audacity-patches.txt and the last
two paragraphs of
At the moment I regard that code as frozen for release, but after the
stable release I will be pushing all the patches from their mailing list
that I consider useful for us to play with, in the hope that re-posting
them with a note that they work for Audacity might encourage them to