On Sun, 2009-04-26 at 00:42 +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote: > On Sat, 25.04.09 14:57, Callum Lerwick (seg@xxxxxxxxxx) wrote: > > > On Sat, 2009-04-25 at 03:38 +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote: > > > Juggling with numbers like this is pointless in Free Software. We > > > have no clue about our end users. > > > > We have plenty of clues about our end users. It's called "verbal > > communication". > > Ah, "verbal communication"? I see, that's what you call saying "Fuck > you" to upstream. Well, if you insist, let's take another look at that message: https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2009-April/msg01773.html https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2009-April/msg01852.html On Thu, 2009-04-23 at 01:31 +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote: > On Wed, 22.04.09 14:51, Callum Lerwick (seg@xxxxxxxxxx) wrote: > > > > > > > Can I at least get a secret gconf key to do what > > > > > > I want? :P This is the second time I politely ask for some direction as to achieve my goal. > > > > > The volume control uses PulseAudio, it doesn't use ALSA directly > > > > > anymore, so no, there's no secret GConf key for that. Finally, a hint. What I want lies within the PulseAudio daemon itself. I did not know that until I was told, just now. > > > > So a PulseAudio config option then. Do I have to write the patch myself? I continue attempting to get some direction a third time. I start getting annoyed. I display my willingness to write a patch if necessary. > > > Probably not a PA config option either. > > > > > > The volume control applet will show a mixer for input devices if an > > > application is recording on it. You'd just need to make the mixer think > > > that something is recording on that device. I'm not sure how to do that, > > > but Lennart might. > > > > No, you are misunderstanding. I don't want to adjust the input volume. I > > want it left alone. I want the master left alone. Master stays at 0dB, > > Line stays at 0dB. I want PA to dink with PCM instead of Master. Still annoyed, and apparently getting misunderstood. Which is annoying. > You can pass a parameter (control=) when loading the PA ALSA plugin > (module-alsa-sink) which specifies the ALSA mixer element to > choose. It's intended to be used as a hackish work-around for drivers > that don't name their controls properly. Wow, finally, exactly the information I was looking for. I don't know your codebase, Lennart. The polite thing to do is guide a fellow coder through your codebase, that you know, and are familiar with, by definition. I just wanted your help, Lennart. ... It doesn't work, but I guess the bridge to further guidance is burned. > > Let's just reverse that then: > > > > --- pulseaudio-0.9.15/src/modules/alsa/alsa-util.c 2009-04-13 16:11:32.000000000 -0500 > > +++ pulseaudio-0.9.15.patched/src/modules/alsa/alsa-util.c 2009-04-22 14:23:49.367297597 -0500 > > @@ -1180,7 +1180,7 @@ > > else if (profile) > > e = pa_alsa_find_elem(m, profile->playback_control_name, profile->playback_control_fallback, TRUE); > > else > > - e = pa_alsa_find_elem(m, "Master", "PCM", TRUE); > > + e = pa_alsa_find_elem(m, "PCM", "Master", TRUE); > > break; > > > > case SND_PCM_STREAM_CAPTURE: I ATTEMPTED A PATCH! SEE, IT'S RIGHT THERE! > The mixer handling code changed a couple of times after this. The patch fails, yes. Some further guidance would be nice. > > Suggestion: Make fallback order a config option. You are hardcoding > > policy. That's a no-no. > > No. This has nothing to do with policy. > > We want to control the 'outermost' volume slider. Because that's the > one that most likely controls the actual analog amplifier if there is > any. Controlling 'PCM' is kind of pointless on most modern cards since > it is implemented digitally. > > It simply doesn't make any sense to pick 'PCM', unless the driver is a > bit weird and doesn't have a 'Master' control. > > And as mentioned there's a workaround, you can specify the control for > a sink. But using that will break device autodetecting and hence the > whole profile logic. BTW, that option was contributed by someone with a > weird driver who supplied me with a patch. He didn't whine on a huge > thread on a mailing list, but just prepared a patch. Could be a good > role model for some other folks, don't you think? And here it is. I already displayed a willingness to write a patch. I *attempted* a patch. It's right there in the archives, signed with my gpg key. It's right there in YOUR QUOTED MESSAGE, plain as day. Do you read before you post? Do you possess *any* grip on reality? And you DARE to suggest I'm just some lazy loudmouth making demands? Is there any more succinct response to that level of dickery than "Fuck you."? I sure can't think of one. So seriously Lennart, Fuck you. <clip> End message. > And no, we have no hard numbers about anything our end users want. I > know your hubris and stuff but uh, sorry, in contrast to what you may > believe I don't think that you are representative for the mythical end > user of Fedora. You are just a very very vocal minority. Yes, we get it. Any individual who speaks up is by definition a minority. So there is absolutely no one you will listen to but yourself.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
