bug#53676: closed ([PATCH 0/5] *** PulseAudio service improvements ***)

[GNU bug Tracking System]

Your message dated Sat, 26 Feb 2022 09:14:12 -0500
with message-id <87czj9ww97.fsf@gmail.com>
and subject line Re: [PATCH v2 2/4] gnu: pulseaudio: Graft to adjust 
configuration.
has caused the debbugs.gnu.org bug report #53676,
regarding [PATCH 0/5] *** PulseAudio service improvements ***
to be marked as done.

(If you believe you have received this mail in error, please contact
help-debbugs@gnu.org.)


-- 
53676: http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=53676
GNU Bug Tracking System
Contact help-debbugs@gnu.org with problems
> --- Begin Message ---
>
>
>
> Subject: 
>
> [PATCH 0/5] *** PulseAudio service improvements ***
>
>
>
>
> Date: 
>
> Mon, 31 Jan 2022 23:13:52 -0500
>
>
>
>
> Hello Guix,
>
> This small series adds an easy way to drop PulseAudio configuration scripts to
> /etc/pulse/default.pa.d.  It also lifts the need to reboot the machine to have
> a new PulseAudio configuration active.
>
> Maxim Cournoyer (5):
>   doc: Fix typo.
>   services/sound: Normalize pulseaudio-configuration accessor names.
>   gnu: pulseaudio: Graft to adjust configuration.
>   services: pulseaudio: Add an extra-script-files configuration field.
>   services: pulseaudio: Deploy the configuration files to /etc/pulse.
>
>  doc/guix.texi               | 29 +++++++++++++++++++++-
>  gnu/packages/pulseaudio.scm | 18 ++++++++++++++
>  gnu/services/sound.scm      | 49 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------
>  3 files changed, 84 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
>
> -- 
> 2.34.0
>
>
>
>
> --- End Message ---
> --- Begin Message ---
>
>
>
> Subject: 
>
> Re: [PATCH v2 2/4] gnu: pulseaudio: Graft to adjust configuration.
>
>
>
>
> Date: 
>
> Sat, 26 Feb 2022 09:14:12 -0500
>
>
>
>
> User-agent: 
>
> Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.2 (gnu/linux)
>
>
>
>
> Hi Liliana,
>
> Liliana Marie Prikler <liliana.prikler@gmail.com> writes:
>
> [...]
>
> > Looks good to me.  Is feedback from others still pending to make a v3
> > or am I the last straw here?
>
> There was a suggestion by Maxime to attempt generalizing file-union with
> implicit names from the file-like objects, but as I noted this would
> make things a bit more complicated/tangled... perhaps it could accept
> name sanitizer procedure as argument.
>
> I'd prefer to keep such effort distinct, as I think it could live next
> to file-union as file-union* for example.
>
> I've now pushed this series, thank a lot for all the comments/feedback!
>
> Maxim
>
>
> --- End Message ---