[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

[debian-hurd-Patches][311571] Bug#522100: pulseaudio FTBFS (debian-ports)



Patches item #311571, was changed at 31/03/2009 21:08 by Samuel Thibault
You can respond by visiting: 
https://alioth.debian.org/tracker/?func=detail&atid=410472&aid=311571&group_id=30628

Status: Open
Priority: 3
Submitted By: Samuel Thibault (sthibaul-guest)
Assigned to: Nobody (None)
Summary: Bug#522100: pulseaudio FTBFS (debian-ports) 
Category: None
Group: None
Resolution: None


Initial Comment:
PATH_MAX, PIPE_MAX, pthread_setaffinity, alsa/evdev build fix.


----------------------------------------------------------------------

>Comment By: Samuel Thibault (sthibault)
Date: 07/05/2010 02:37

Message:
It seems fine, please submit, thanks!


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Comment By: Pino Toscano (pino-guest)
Date: 06/05/2010 19:59

Message:
Updated patch for pulseaudio 0.9.21. Below the various problems and eventual solutions found:

- src/pulse/context.c: usage of SA_NOCLDWAIT
  sigaction(2) shows it is Linux-only, and waitpid(2) says that checking for the presence of that flag and checking that the handler is SIG_IGN is equivalent; thus, make the SA_NOCLDWAIT flag check optionally compiled depending on the SA_NOCLDWAIT presence

- src/pulsecore/memtrap.c: SA_SIGINFO
  the first step is using a simple sa_handler if SA_SIGINFO is not defined; futhermore, PA remaps memory in the SIGBUS signal handler, using the data provided in the siginfo_t, so just fail in the simple signal handler

- src/modules/rtp/module-rtp-recv.c: SO_TIMESTAMP
  Hurd does not support activating the timestamp receiving for sockets, so enable it only if SO_TIMESTAMP is defined

- src/modules/rtp/rtp.c: SO_TIMESTAMP
  most probably the right type to check should be SCM_TIMESTAMP, like other types available for cmsg_type (eg SCM_RIGHTS)

- src/modules/module-pipe-source.c: PIPE_BUF
  make use of the available pa_pipe_buf() for the job

 - src/utils/pacmd.c: PIPE_BUF
  here the two 'ibuf' and 'obuf' are dynamically allocated with the minimum size of all the pipe_buf for the fd's they are used as buffer when reading from and writing to

- debian/rules: autogeneration of pulseaudio.install for Hurd
  used the same approach used for kfreebsd-*


If the patch looks ok, I can send the pulseaudio bits to the PA's trac and the debian part to #573339.


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Comment By: Emilio Pozuelo Monfort (pochu)
Date: 29/01/2010 00:38

Message:
The patch still applies and builds with 0.9.21

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Comment By: Pino Toscano (pino-guest)
Date: 30/10/2009 22:39

Message:
This is a first attempt in a porting patch for pulseaudio 0.9.19.
Below the various problems and eventual solutions found:

- src/pulse/context.c: usage of SA_NOCLDWAIT
  sigaction(2) shows it is Linux-only, and waitpid(2) says that checking for the presence of that flag and checking that the handler is SIG_IGN is equivalent; thus, make the SA_NOCLDWAIT flag check optionally compiled depending on the SA_NOCLDWAIT presence

- src/pulsecore/memtrap.c: SA_SIGINFO
  the first step is using a simple sa_handler if SA_SIGINFO is not defined;
  futhermore, PA remaps memory in the SIGBUS signal handler, using the data provided in the siginfo_t,
  so just fail in the simple signal handler

- src/modules/rtp/module-rtp-recv.c: SO_TIMESTAMP
  Hurd does not support activating the timestamp receiving for sockets, so enable it only if SO_TIMESTAMP is defined

- src/modules/rtp/rtp.c: SO_TIMESTAMP
  most probably the right type to check should be SCM_TIMESTAMP, like other types available for cmsg_type (eg SCM_RIGHTS)

- src/modules/module-pipe-source.c:
- src/utils/pacmd.c: PIPE_BUF
  no solution yet, manual #define for now

- debian/rules: autogeneration of pulseaudio.install for Hurd
  used the same approach used for kfreebsd-*

Of course, given the PIPE_BUF stuff (and the review needed) it is not worth being sent upstream yet, but I thought posting it could have been useful for others to take a look.


----------------------------------------------------------------------

You can respond by visiting: 
https://alioth.debian.org/tracker/?func=detail&atid=410472&aid=311571&group_id=30628


Reply to: