On Thu, 2013-07-25 at 10:53 +0200, Thomas Martitz wrote: > Am 25.07.2013 10:27, schrieb Peter Meerwald: > >>> Anyway, I'm also annoyed by the chattiness so I think the quiet argument is > >>> good, but since pacmd can't connect to remote servers, > >>> you don't need to wait 100 ms to try to detect whether the server is old or > >>> new. A new pacmd can just assume a new server. > >> Pretty sure I used pacmd on a remote server by setting the PULSE_SERVER env > >> variable. > > pacmd check for a pid file and connects using PF_UNIX; it's local only at > > the moment (and there is no authentication) > > (Resending to the list) > > Hm okay, I must have confused something then. So the current pacmd can > assume a current server, but if pacmd ever gains the ability to connect > to remote servers they have at to be at least the current version? I don't see any reason for adding remote server support to pacmd. Why do people even care about pacmd? If it has functionality that pactl doesn't, that's considered a bug (at least by me). -- Tanu
