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

Re: why do we still ship (gtk1) xmms, when we have bmp

On Sun, 18 Jun 2006 09:39:30 +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:

> Ville Skyttä wrote:
> > On Sat, 2006-06-17 at 23:46 +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
> > 
> >> So there is a maintained and gtk2 using xmms out there, why do we thrn
> >> still ship xmms itself?
> > 
> > AFAIK a lot of plugins are available only for xmms, other media players
> > can use libxmms and the plugins,
> bmp has libbmp which is api compatible with libxmms and I beleave (but I
> am in no way sure) even abi), the plugin interface is not ABI but is API
> compatible, so doing a recompile is all that it should take.

Are you sure? I remember that bmp uses gnome vfs style file paths, and
this is not understood by many xmms plugins if simply built for bmp.
They would even fail to load files with a "file://" prefix.
> One note though I tried audacious yesterday which is a fork of bmp
> (after bmp was declared dead by its maintainers) and we really should
> having this discussion about audacious as bmp is kinda dead.

This "discussion" should be about actual packages and in the bugzilla
review queue, though. We should not make a sudden jump to just another
fork only to discover its deficiences. That's why XMMS is still around
and why bmpx has not made it yet.

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