On Fri, 2009-04-24 at 23:48 +0100, David Woodhouse wrote: > 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. I was just envisaging making sure we always have a low-level mixer app available, but not necessarily installed by default. If the Pulse stuff gets to the point where it covers 95% of cases I personally won't lose any sleep over having to tell the other 5% to install gnome-alsamixer or whatever. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org http://www.happyassassin.net -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
