Re: virtual package for mixer programs?
> Britton wrote:
> > Some audio programs really depend on the user having a mixer program of
> > some sort in order to work correctly. Since there are many mixer
> > programs, I'd hate to force my prefrence for aumix on people, but it
> > doesn't appear that there is a virtual package for mixers. Would such a
> > virtual package be appropriate?
>
> Hm, I'm just interested -- _how_ does this program depend on having a
> mixer?
I would like to 'recommends' the presence of a mixer program, absolute
dependence is probably too strong. Not every program even makes an effort
to set the mixer up, and if it goes completely unconfigured, I don't
believe OSS makes any gaurantees that the default values will be sensible
(as you point out, the volume knob is right there, and how can OSS know
how you have it set?). There are already too many mixer programs out
there, and since some of them are good and actively maintained (I'm mainly
thinking of aumix here), I don't see the point in implementing incomplete
mixer functionality at the start of programs which are really designed to
do other things.
The program in question is my own, rawrec. It records raw audio, like
bplay tries to, except with slightly more control and with options that
work correctly for raw audio (bplay's didn't, last I checked, and the
upstream maintainer had dissapeared). bplay didn't try to set the mixer
device either. I know of other programs which don't try to do so, and
just assume the user knows how to use a mixer beforehand, though they
aren't packaged for debian. aumix has features designed to let users
invoke it as part of a .bashrc or the like. On the whole the mixer /
recorder-player split is almost a standard division for command line
audio utilities.
> I mean, I can kill all my mixers, run any program, and the volume
> control on my speakers is still right there.
Ok, if 'recommends' means strictly 'executes simultaneously and in
conjunction with' then you are right, they are unrelated. I am inclined
to agree with you anyway that a vp for mixers is probably more trouble
than its worth, since most users who are likely to use audio utilities
that factor out mixer functionality probably know what they are doing
anyway.
> --
> see shy jo
Britton
Reply to: