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. > 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. 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 :) 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@xxxxxxxxxx> Red Hat -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
