On 10/3/21 6:03 PM, Mateusz Piotrowski wrote:
On 22/09/2021 20:03, Hans Petter Selasky wrote:
The branch main has been updated by hselasky:
URL:
https://cgit.FreeBSD.org/src/commit/?id=903873ce15600fc02a0ea42cbf888cff232b411d
commit 903873ce15600fc02a0ea42cbf888cff232b411d
Author: Hans Petter Selasky <hsela...@freebsd.org>
AuthorDate: 2021-09-22 13:42:51 +0000
Commit: Hans Petter Selasky <hsela...@freebsd.org>
CommitDate: 2021-09-22 17:43:56 +0000
Implement and use new mixer(3) library for FreeBSD.
Wiki article:
https://wiki.freebsd.org/SummerOfCode2021Projects/SoundMixerImprovements
This project was part of Google Summer of Code 2021.
This may be a bit late to discuss but the new mixer has a completely
different
set of options and command-line arguments. In addition to that,
the output of the command is different.
Shouldn't we keep supporting the previous way of interacting with mixer?
I know that people are scripting mixer and its output in production
in order to control soundcards. Are there any good reasons to keep the new
mixer(8) as it is now while keeping the old name? Perhaps we could change
the name of the new mixer to, e.g., newmixer. Users are going to have to
rewrite their scripts for mixer(8) anyway for 14.0.
Hi Mateusz,
It depends what level of compatibility you need.
If you have a script parsing mixer output, then it needs to be binary
compatible so to speak. That means some new features like "mute" won't work.
It looks like all BSDs have diverged in the mixer area. NetBSD calls it
mixerctl:
https://man.netbsd.org/mixerctl.1
During the GSoc there was no requirement for binary compatibility for
the mixer utility. Only in the kernel APIs are backwards compatible.
Would it help to make a port, like "oldmixer", under "audio" ?
Christos, feel free to chime in.
--HPS
_______________________________________________
dev-commits-src-all@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/dev-commits-src-all
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "dev-commits-src-all-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
