Re: [arch-general] pavucontrol depency question

2017-03-20 Thread Friedrich Strohmaier 
Hi Christoph, Andy, Marten, *,



Am 20.03.2017 um 10:06 schrieb Christoph Gysin via arch-general:

> pavucontrol works fine without pulseaudio, if you control another
> machine's pulseaudio instance over the network:

wasn't aware about the network possibility which finally makes perfectly sense
making pavucontrol an optional dependency for the local setup.

>$ PULSE_SERVER=another-box pavucontrol

> Not sure about xfce4 packages, don't use them.

other story - probably worth, filing a bug.

> On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 1:11 AM, Friedrich Strohmaier wrote:

[..]

>> pavucontrol is out of any functionality without a running pulseaudio server.

>> So what is the reason making both dependencies optional?

so thank you all for enlightening :o))
-- 
Friedrich

Re: [arch-general] pavucontrol depency question

2017-03-20 Thread Maarten de Vries via arch-general 
On 20 Mar 2017 10:41 a.m., "ProgAndy"  wrote:

Am 20.03.2017 um 10:06 schrieb Christoph Gysin via arch-general:

> pavucontrol works fine without pulseaudio, if you control another
> machine's pulseaudio instance over the network:
>
> $ PULSE_SERVER=another-box pavucontrol
>
> Not sure about xfce4 packages, don't use them.
>
> Hi,

You can use the pulseaudio client library to send audio to a pulseaudio
server in your network. That works only for software using libpulse,
though. It probably won't work for connections through pulseaudio-alsa.


pulseaudio-alsa works fine with a remote pulse server if you properly
configure the client library. My desktop has streamed all audio to a
different device for years without problem. And that included audio from
alsa-only applications.

-- Maarten

Re: [arch-general] RFC: Cross compilers using newlib

2017-03-20 Thread Eli Schwartz via arch-general 
On 03/20/2017 02:51 PM, Christer Solskogen via arch-general wrote:
> Hi!
> 
> Instead of having a separate binutils, gcc and newlib package for every 
> architecture it is possible to combine them into one. You can even build 
> them all in one swoop if you want. For instance, in something like this:

[snip]

> Is this something that should be done? Or are there good reasons to keep 
> them separate?

I guess the main question would be, what benefit do you get out of
artificially combining separate source trees for separate projects, with
essentially no purpose I can see other than preventing you from updating
them individually (a very valid use case).

Should we do the same to the packages for your host architecture?

...

Generally, suggestions about how to do things differently should be
accompanied by some sort of reasoning as to *why* one would want to do
whatever-it-is.
Especially when that is something which goes against intuitive packaging
principles in a very large way.

You seem to be taking it for granted, that people will somehow magically
agree with you that a unified multi-package is an optimal state of
affairs, and are looking to find out if there is any valid defense of
the status quo.

-- 
Eli Schwartz



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

[arch-general] RFC: Cross compilers using newlib

2017-03-20 Thread Christer Solskogen via arch-general 

Hi!

Instead of having a separate binutils, gcc and newlib package for every 
architecture it is possible to combine them into one. You can even build 
them all in one swoop if you want. For instance, in something like this:


_target=m68k-elf
_binutilsver=2.28
_gccver=6.3.0
_islver=0.18
_newlibver=2.5.0.20170228
pkgname=${_target}-devkit
pkgver=20170320
pkgrel=1
pkgdesc="A combined binutils/gcc/newlib kit for ${_target}"
arch=('x86_64')
options=('!strip')
depends=('gmp' 'mpfr' 'libmpc')
url="http://dummy.no;
license=('GPL' 'LGPL' 'BSD')
source=(binutils-${_binutilsver}.tar.gz gcc-${_gccver}.tar.gz 
isl-${_islver}.tar.gz newlib-${_newlibver}.tar.gz)

md5sums=('d5d270fd0b698ed59ca5ade8e1b5059c'
 '6e5ea04789678f1250c1b30c4d9ec417'
 '076c69f81067f2f5b908c099f445a338'
 '6b7b45ed2280de9196df62511094fc58')

prepare()
{
cd ${srcdir}/gcc-${_gccver}
ln -s ../isl-${_islver} isl

# Do not run fixincludes
sed -i 's@\./fixinc\.sh@-c true@' gcc/Makefile.in

# Create a combined source tree
for i in bfd binutils gas ld opcodes
do
ln -s ${srcdir}/binutils-${_binutilsver}/$i
done

ln -s ${srcdir}/newlib-${_newlibver}/newlib

mkdir ${srcdir}/build

}

build()
{
#binutils does not compile with the CPPFLAGS in makepkg.conf
unset CPPFLAGS

cd ${srcdir}/build
${srcdir}/gcc-${_gccver}/configure --prefix=/usr 
--libexecdir=/usr/lib --target=${_target} --enable-languages=c,c++ 
--disable-libstdcxx-pch --with-newlib

make
}

package()
{
cd ${srcdir}/build
make install-strip DESTDIR=${pkgdir}
rm -rf ${pkgdir}/usr/share
rm ${pkgdir}/usr/lib/libcc1*
}


Is this something that should be done? Or are there good reasons to keep 
them separate?


--
chs

Re: [arch-general] pavucontrol depency question

2017-03-20 Thread ProgAndy 

Am 20.03.2017 um 10:06 schrieb Christoph Gysin via arch-general:

pavucontrol works fine without pulseaudio, if you control another
machine's pulseaudio instance over the network:

$ PULSE_SERVER=another-box pavucontrol

Not sure about xfce4 packages, don't use them.


Hi,

You can use the pulseaudio client library to send audio to a pulseaudio 
server in your network. That works only for software using libpulse, 
though. It probably won't work for connections through pulseaudio-alsa.


https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/PulseAudio/Examples#PulseAudio_over_network

--
Andy

Re: [arch-general] pavucontrol depency question

2017-03-20 Thread Christoph Gysin via arch-general 
pavucontrol works fine without pulseaudio, if you control another
machine's pulseaudio instance over the network:

   $ PULSE_SERVER=another-box pavucontrol

Not sure about xfce4 packages, don't use them.


On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 1:11 AM, Friedrich Strohmaier
 wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> some time ago xfce sorted out xfce4-mixer in favour of 
> xfce4-pulseaudio-plugin.
> - agreed removing xfce4-mixer
> - Installed xfce4-pulseaudio-plugin - no sound mixing available at all
> - Installed optional dependency pavucontrol - no sound mixing available - no
>   connection to pulseaudio server
> - Installed optional dependency pulsaudio - yay! sound mixing up an running.
>
> I don't understand much about dependency quirks but I wonder about the reason
> both dependencies beeing made optional.
> xfce4-pulsaudio-plugin is out of any functionality without working pavucontrol
> pavucontrol is out of any functionality without a running pulseaudio server.
>
> So what is the reason making both dependencies optional?
> --
> Friedrich



-- 
echo mailto: NOSPAM !#$.'<*>'|sed 's. ..'|tr "<*> !#:2" org@fr33z3