> > 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). I just compared the length of the help/usage output of pacmd vs. pactl and went with the longer... pacmd seems to have support for set-log-xxx global suspend describe-module update-xxx-proplist set-default kill play-file which pactl lacks and pacmd can be considered a test/debug tools for scripts executed by the daemon regards, p. -- Peter Meerwald +43-664-2444418 (mobile)
