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

Re: FESCo Meeting Summary for 20090424



On Fri, 2009-04-24 at 23:22 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Sat, 2009-04-25 at 03:09 +0100, Bastien Nocera wrote:
> 
> > FYI, Adam didn't revive the old mixer (that is still in gnome-media, but
> > disabled), he revived gnome-alsamixer, another GNOME ALSA mixer with no
> > upstream.
> 
> It does have one; it's part of GNOME's git. The git checkout command is
> included as a comment right at the top of the spec.

Oh, code is available. Last code check-in was 4 years ago:
http://git.gnome.org/cgit/gnome-alsamixer/tree/ChangeLog

> > The URL mentioned in the spec file[1] says:
> > "The page cannot be found"
> 
> Sorry, I'll adjust that.
> 
> > If the thing is going to get installed by default, you should at _least_
> > package up the old gnome-volume-control. Otherwise, yes, I'll be a pain
> > and drag this to the board.
> 
> My thinking on that is explained in the bug report. I'd say the old
> g-v-c has less of an upstream, because the old g-v-c effectively doesn't
> exist anywhere except in history.

It's in the gst-mixer sub-dir of gnome-media:
http://git.gnome.org/cgit/gnome-media/tree/gst-mixer

It's still the volume control for systems that don't have PulseAudio
like Solaris or *BSDs.

>  Where could it get developed in
> future, if we wanted to push some changes upstream? The new g-v-c is
> effectively a completely different application, it doesn't count as
> 'upstream' for the old g-v-c any more. I don't think you'd be accepting
> patches for the *old* g-v-c into the *new* one :)

No, but Brian Cameron is maintaining the old gnome-volume-control.

> gnome-alsamixer exists as a module in GNOME git. Hence if we're correct
> in identifying a demand for a full-access mixer in GNOME,
> gnome-alsamixer is in fact the project which could more easily be
> resurrected as a proper upstream application. It'd be rather hard to do
> that for the old g-v-c - it would have to be changed to be identified as
> something completely different from the *new* g-v-c.
> 
> I'm not particularly attached to this logic, though. If everyone agrees
> the old g-v-c is the way to go I'm fine with that, as I said all I
> really wanted is a full-access mixer in the default install.
> -- 
> Adam Williamson <awilliam redhat com>
> Red Hat
> 


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