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

Re: The Great Pulseaudio Mixer Debate: a modest (productive) proposal



On Fri, 2009-04-24 at 15:21 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> Second part of the sentence: "which ones are worth supporting in
> gnome-volume-control". Presumably it's the ones that aren't "worth
> supporting" that get closed WONTFIX.

There are two separate categories to consider:
 "worth supporting in PulseAudio", vs. 
 "worth supporting in Fedora"

I think we've established that there are a number of cases in the latter
category which _don't_ fit into the former. And those are the ones which
have been closed WONTFIX.

And it's fine for the PulseAudio folks to say that -- PulseAudio
deliberately _doesn't_ set out to be all things to all people.

It's just that the scope of PulseAudio is a little _too_ limited for
Fedora to stomach.

So we need a way to restore functionality for those users who fall
outside the PA scope -- for the moment, shipping gnome-alsamixer (as
decided by FESCo today) will bridge that gap.

I'm not sure if we'll find a better solution than that in the future.

I don't think we're just going to decide that Fedora doesn't care about
these users -- and from what I saw today I don't think it's likely that
the PA folks will decide that they _do_ care.

So it looks like if we keep PulseAudio as the core around which Fedora
audio support is based, we're _always_ going to need to keep something
extra to fill the functionality gap.

-- 
David Woodhouse                            Open Source Technology Centre
David Woodhouse intel com                              Intel Corporation


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