Re: Bug#170843: status of patch
On Wed, 2002-12-11 at 21:25, Chipzz wrote:
> On 11 Dec 2002, James D Strandboge wrote:
>
> > From: James D Strandboge <jstrand1@rochester.rr.com>
> > Subject: Re: Bug#170843: status of patch
>
> > But, I do not agree that this is just a workaround. esd by itself will
> > honor ESD_SPAWN_OPTIONS, but gnome-session doesn't because of the way
>
> I think this option is horribly wrong. Why use it at all when you can
> start esd with
> 'esd `cat /etc/esound/esd.conf`'
> ? Another option just adds to the copmplexity and will confuse the user.
> Editing esd.conf is how he expects it to work, you clearly did ;), and
> adding this option will require documentation.
> Can you give a good reason why "yet another option (tm)" is a good
> thing?
>
I think this is a far argument. The intent was not to introduce yet
another option, but rather have gnome-session utilize an already
existing esd option. Unfortunately, just editing esd.conf at this time
does not work. Your 'cat' proposition is fine for the command line, but
awkward in code IMO.
I have thought about this issue more because of the feedback (which is
why I sent the email to the list in the first place). Although I still
think having gnome-session pass ESD_SPAWN_OPTIONS to esd is valid,
gnome-session and esd are fairly tightly coupled with or without my
patch. As such, I have implemented a patch for esd that makes it honor
esd.conf if esd is called without arguments. This means that
gnome-session doesn't have to do anything special for esd to work, and
the user can put whatever is needed into esd.conf for his or her
soundcard, and gnome and esd "will just work". Expect it, and an
explanation shortly.
Jamie
--
Email: jstrand1@rochester.rr.com
GPG/PGP ID: 26384A3A
Fingerprint: D9FF DF4A 2D46 A353 A289 E8F5 AA75 DCBE 2638 4A3A
Reply to: