Re: [pulseaudio-discuss] Problem: non-interactive pulseaudio ( headless )

2019-09-02 Thread Arun Raghavan
On Tue, 3 Sep 2019, at 12:13 AM, Brian Bulkowski wrote: > Thanks for the response, if you don't believe this is a good use, I > won't bother further. GStreamer, then. If you have something working with PulseAudio, it might make sense to keep it and maybe change incrementally rather than going

Re: [pulseaudio-discuss] Problem: non-interactive pulseaudio ( headless )

2019-09-02 Thread Brian Bulkowski
Thanks for the response, if you don't believe this is a good use, I won't bother further. GStreamer, then. Regards --- -brian On 9/1/2019 11:58 PM, Arun Raghavan wrote: Hey Brian, On Mon, 2 Sep 2019, at 11:45 AM, Brian Bulkowski wrote: Hey Arun, Thanks for responding. I usually point

Re: [pulseaudio-discuss] Problem: non-interactive pulseaudio ( headless )

2019-09-02 Thread Arun Raghavan
Hey Brian, On Mon, 2 Sep 2019, at 11:45 AM, Brian Bulkowski wrote: > Hey Arun, > > Thanks for responding. > > > I usually point folks to the sync-playback.c test that we have a starting > > point, but this is certainly less than ideal. > > "less than ideal" is quite the politeness. Let's

Re: [pulseaudio-discuss] Problem: non-interactive pulseaudio ( headless )

2019-09-02 Thread Brian Bulkowski
Hey Arun, Thanks for responding. I usually point folks to the sync-playback.c test that we have a starting point, but this is certainly less than ideal. "less than ideal" is quite the politeness. Let's see 1) it doesn't cover files, nor does it cover files of different types ( mp3 vs