On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 5:59 PM, Paul Hartman <paul.hartman+gen...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 4:06 PM, Michael Mol <mike...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 4:57 PM, Alan McKinnon <alan.mckin...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > >> > >> On Wed, 12 Sep 2012 11:15:25 -0400 > >> Michael Mol <mike...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> > On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 10:55 AM, Alan McKinnon > >> > <alan.mckin...@gmail.com>wrote: > >> > > >> > > On Wed, 12 Sep 2012 16:00:34 +0200 > >> > > Alex Schuster <wo...@wonkology.org> wrote: > >> > > > >> > > > Michael Mol writes: > >> > > > > >> > > > > On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 9:33 AM, Neil Bothwick > >> > > > > <n...@digimed.co.uk <mailto:n...@digimed.co.uk>> wrote: > >> > > > > >> > > > > Instead we get, try USE="-*" :P > >> > > > > > >> > > > > "Try MAKEOPTS='-j1'" > >> > > > > >> > > > Which in fact often helps... especially for me, I am using > >> > > > MAKEOPTS="-j --load=4", and I often experience build problems that > >> > > > are not reproducible with a fixed number of jobs, regardless how > >> > > > large. > >> > > > >> > > Yes indeed, and that one is good advice. > >> > > > >> > > Not every Makefile out there is safe for -j > 1, so running it as > >> > > one job is valid debugging. It's the correct thing to do with weird > >> > > build failures as it tests if a specific condition is true or not. > >> > > > >> > > > >> > Yeah, except I've already gone that route, or otherwise ruled it out, > >> > before I ask. That's why it's grating. (Even more grating when I have > >> > to spend the time building a package again, just to convince someone > >> > that, no, it's not MAKEOPTS that's the problem.) > >> > > >> > It's like "Have you tried turning it off and back on again". > >> > >> I learned that one the hard way :-) > >> > >> Now when I submit support posts, I try emulate what bgo asks: > >> > >> 1. nature of problem > >> 2. what have I tried already > >> 3. steps to reproduce > >> 4. result gotten > >> 5. expected result > >> 6. relevant config files and settings > >> > >> Tends to weed out a lot of the silly auto-bot style answers > >> > > > > I'm going through one on launchpad right now where I indicated that I > > couldn't get beeps out of xterm, but I could get sound from > sound-emitting > > websites. (Trying to get x11 bell to function via PulseAudio via work > > laptop) > > > > First response? "Needs information: Can you get sound from other sound > > apps?" > > > > #pulseaudio simply ignored me. And googling turns up that Lennart hates > the > > X server as being a funnel for sound events. I was physically twitching > by > > the time I gave up... > > It is not a feature I use, but... I think you need the x11-bell module > loaded in your PA config, and point it to a valid sound file > containing your preferred beep noise. Maybe then also run "xset b on" > in X... maybe some "xset b something" to set volume of the beep as > well, and hope your desktop environment doesn't override your hard > work with its own sound preferences. :) > xset is set properly, x11-bell module is loaded...but it's entirely unclear how to get it pointed at a valid sample file. Even PulseAudio's "Perfect Setup" page glosses over it. -- :wq
