[arch-general] PulseAudio in [testing]
ngoonee at gmail.com
Sun Nov 28 17:19:11 CET 2010
On Sun, 2010-11-28 at 17:49 +0800, Ray Rashif wrote:
> On 28 November 2010 11:24, Yaro Kasear <yaro at marupa.net> wrote:
> > On Sun, 2010-11-28 at 11:17 +0800, Ng Oon-Ee wrote:
> >> On Sat, 2010-11-27 at 18:21 -0600, Yaro Kasear wrote:
> >> > I don't see KDE upstream doing that. They have Phonon. What's more, most
> >> > KDE apps today count on Phonon being there. KDE upstream won't do that
> >> > without expecting to break KDE.
> >> Admittedly my view on this is skewed, since I follow PA's development
> >> pretty closely, but one of the devs on PA (Colin Guthrie) has mentioned
> >> getting various patches he's done for Mandriva's KDE implementation such
> >> that KDE's mixer and such supports pulseaudio natively. Phonon would
> >> output directly to pulse in that case, I believe.
> > The point of which would be what exactly? All due respect, Phonon is
> > already a sound daemon. To output sound through a sound daemon into
> > ANOTHER sound daemon, particularly one as poor as Pulse Audio, is
> > begging for latency and who knows how many other problems.
> > And, again, it's redundant and unnecessary since Phonon's already a good
> > sound daemon on its own merits.
> In fact, it handles all my audio pretty well, and even lets JACK take
> over when needed without my intervention. There's no PulseAudio or a
> kill command in that equation.
I'll take both your words on it. Its worth noting that Pulseaudio
automatically corks when JACK wants a sound-device (jack2 that is, not
jack1). Running phonon atop pulseaudio wouldn't make sense if every app
uses phonon. Due to other considerations (for example that all the major
distros are pushing pulse), this may not be the case in the future.
> Anyway, Jan, everything works great, no troubles (with libpulse and
> without pulseaudio) on KDE. Good job.
Yes, the lack of complaints (about actual problems) is really
More information about the arch-general