Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2012 01:21:05 +0100 From: Emanuel Haupt <ehaupt@FreeBSD.org> To: Emanuel Haupt <ehaupt@critical.ch> Cc: cvs-ports@FreeBSD.org, Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.org>, lx@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org, ports-committers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/audio Makefile ports/audio/wmmixer Makefile distinfo pkg-descr Message-ID: <20120201012105.8562e5a9.ehaupt@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <20120201010845.e0ae283a.ehaupt@critical.ch> References: <201201312131.q0VLVPI3000765@repoman.freebsd.org> <4F285E83.7000405@FreeBSD.org> <20120201003411.44bb3e9f.ehaupt@FreeBSD.org> <20120201010845.e0ae283a.ehaupt@critical.ch>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Emanuel Haupt <ehaupt@critical.ch> wrote: > Emanuel Haupt <ehaupt@FreeBSD.org> wrote: > > Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.org> wrote: > > > On 01/31/2012 13:31, Emanuel Haupt wrote: > > > > Resurrect wmmixer from the attic > > > > > > How is this better than wmsmixer which we still have, and still > > > works? > > > > From the description audio/wmsmixer seems to be a similar (if not > > the same) dockapp. Unfortunately I can't confirm this since it is > > unfetchable (maintainer cc'ed): > > > > ... > > Installed a package from wmsmixer. From the looks of it it's a > different application: > > http://people.freebsd.org/~ehaupt/snippets/wmmixer-vs-wmsmixer/wmmixer-vs-wmsmixer.png but on a closer look, looking at the help output the pretty much look from the same origin: http://people.freebsd.org/~ehaupt/snippets/wmmixer-vs-wmsmixer/wmmixer-vs-wmsmixer2.png which one should we keep?
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20120201012105.8562e5a9.ehaupt>