On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 5:08 PM, Michael Mol <mike...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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.
/etc/pulse/default.pa on gentoo contains this line (commented out): load-sample-lazy x11-bell /usr/share/sounds/gtk-events/activate.wav I'm assuming that creates a sample called x11-bell, then I think later on when you load the module, you would reference it like: load-module module-x11-bell sample=x11-bell then hopefully your xset commands might actually produce something audible. Cross your fingers, etc. :)
