Garrett D'Amore wrote: > Darren J Moffat wrote: >> Garrett D'Amore wrote: >>>> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/VolumeControl >>>> >>>> Seems to indicate a desire to add this functionality to g-v-c for >>>> Fedora and their choice of audit infrastructure. >>>> >>>> I don't know if code for this actually exists or if this is all just >>>> requests for features and mockups. >>>> >>> Its not in the g-v-c code today. But it looks to me like Fedora is >>> aiming for a PulseAudio based implementation, which has its own issues. >>> If people really want the per-application controls in g-v-c, they can >>> be added, but its just a time thing. I'd prefer to deal with such a >>> request as an RFE rather than a TCR. >> >> The problem is as I understand from the description you provided not >> doing it would be a regression. Or is it that what sdtaudiocontrol >> provides isn't really that useful anyway ? > > Yes on both counts. Its a regression, but of functionality that is IMO > rarely used and which is problematic in systems using gnome. > (Historically, all gnome applications would have just had one entry for > the esd daemon. More recently, gnome applications manage their own soft > volume using attenuation within the application, which wouldn't be > synchronized with any per app volume control.) Also, this ability was > never delivered in OpenSolaris. > > >> >> I'm not in a position to play with that part of sdtaudiocontol at the >> moment since I'm either on SXCE via Sun Ray or an OpenSolaris 2008.11, >> so neither gives me the ability to see how this works. >> > > Right. (And, on builds prior to 100 or so, even SXCE didn't work right > if you were using gnome, because you only have one application, esd, > that shows up.)
In that case I'm happy with the EOF of sdtaudiocontrol. -- Darren J Moffat
