On Thu, 10.01.08 22:19, Warren Togami (wtogami@redhat.com) wrote:

>> changes are not really suited for an updated package for an already
>> released distribution, since they are almost exclusively new features,
>> and only very few relevant bugfixes. I guess this is the classical
>> distribution dilemma: are the new
>> features or the stability more important? Whatever way I decide, I'll
>> make some people unhappy.
>
> We don't currently have even stability, so it really isn't a choice a
> between the two.
>
> It sounds like 0.9.8 doesn't have relevant stability fixes, and perhaps the
> desire to upgrade to 0.9.8 is misguided because it really wouldn't help?

Yes, that's basically what I am suggesting.

Lennart

--
Lennart Poettering Red Hat, Inc.
lennart [at] poettering [dot] net ICQ# 11060553
http://0pointer.net/lennart/ GnuPG 0x1A015CC4

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

On Thu, 10.01.08 22:07, Warren Togami (wtogami@redhat.com) wrote:

> Does upgrading from 0.9.7 to 0.9.8 break library ABI with applications
> already linked against any pulseaudio library? If not, we should really
> explore the possibility of upgrading to a newer pulseaudio version in
> Fedora 8.

ABI is stable in all 0.9.x versions.

> Later when the test users agree that the pulseaudio package in your test
> repository is seemingly good, it can be pushed to F8's updates-testing
> repository where many thousands of other users who opt-in to that optional
> channel will be exposed to it. It can be tested there for a while before
> pushing to the public in the stable updates channel. This multi-layered
> approach to testing should ensure that the update is of higher quality than
> the current F8 pulseaudio.
>
> Pulseaudio made many applications that used to be stable suddenly
> unreliable. Apps like pidgin, mplayer, xine, Adobe Flash Player and
> many

Uh, don't get me started on Flash.

> more now have weird pulseaudio related crash issues. There is a desire to
> pull in newer pulseaudio versions if bugs are fixed to make it more stable.
>
> Please let us explore the feasibility of upgrading it in F8?

I will put a copy of 0.9.8 in updates-testing.

Lennart

--
Lennart Poettering Red Hat, Inc.
lennart [at] poettering [dot] net ICQ# 11060553
http://0pointer.net/lennart/ GnuPG 0x1A015CC4

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

On Thu, 10.01.08 21:07, Jeff Spaleta (jspaleta@gmail.com) wrote:

> In reality a lot of the specifics on how pulseaudio updating should
> work is up to you. Whatever you do just try to be self-consistent
> about it. You could even recruit a co-maintainer to help with release
> updates if you personally want to focus primarily on devel branch in
> the future.

Hmm, anyone interested in co-maintaining PA with me and doing stuff like
doing updates for released distros and suchlike?

I'd be very interested in focussing solely on devel. I'd be very happy
about everyone helping out with packaging PA for the stable distros or
looking a bit after bz.

If you are interested, please ping me in private.

Thanks,

Lennart

--
Lennart Poettering Red Hat, Inc.
lennart [at] poettering [dot] net ICQ# 11060553
http://0pointer.net/lennart/ GnuPG 0x1A015CC4

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Lennart Poettering wrote:

On Thu, 10.01.08 22:19, Warren Togami (wtogami@redhat.com) wrote:



changes are not really suited for an updated package for an already
released distribution, since they are almost exclusively new features,
and only very few relevant bugfixes. I guess this is the classical
distribution dilemma: are the new

features or the stability more important? Whatever way I decide, I'll
make some people unhappy.

We don't currently have even stability, so it really isn't a choice a
between the two.


It sounds like 0.9.8 doesn't have relevant stability fixes, and perhaps the
desire to upgrade to 0.9.8 is misguided because it really wouldn't help?



Yes, that's basically what I am suggesting.


new features (if they don't break stuff, come with an incomaptible
API/ABI) are reasons for a update too. (maybe not for RHEL or debian but
for distors like fedora).


--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

On Wed, 2008-01-09 at 09:20 +0100, Valent Turkovic wrote:
> Hi,
> I saw that Pulse Audio 0.9.8 got released two months ago:
> http://pulseaudio.org/milestone/0.9.8
> and I see on my Fedora 8 that we still have 0.9.7
>
> $ pulseaudio --version
> pulseaudio 0.9.7
>
> Will there be an upgrade soon on Fedora 8 to Pulse Audio 0.9.8?
>
> Lost of issues have been fixed in new Pulse Audio so users like me who
> have issues with Pulse Audio would appreciate the much needed upgrade.

Pulseaudio 0.9.8 will hit testing soon. Please test it and rate it
accordingly -- I am not going to mark it stable by hand, so it relies on
getting enough karma points.

Also, I would be especially thankful if anyone with this [1] hardware
could confirm if the problem (not necessarily caused by pulseaudio
itself) appears also in F8. If yes, I consider it a good reason to hold
the update indefinitely, until it gets resovled.

[1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=428537

Thanks,
--
Lubomir Kundrak (Red Hat Security Response Team)

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

On 1/13/08, Lubomir Kundrak <lkundrak@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 2008-01-09 at 09:20 +0100, Valent Turkovic wrote:
> > Hi,
> > I saw that Pulse Audio 0.9.8 got released two months ago:
> > http://pulseaudio.org/milestone/0.9.8
> > and I see on my Fedora 8 that we still have 0.9.7
> >
> > $ pulseaudio --version
> > pulseaudio 0.9.7
> >
> > Will there be an upgrade soon on Fedora 8 to Pulse Audio 0.9.8?
> >
> > Lost of issues have been fixed in new Pulse Audio so users like me who
> > have issues with Pulse Audio would appreciate the much needed upgrade.
>
> Pulseaudio 0.9.8 will hit testing soon. Please test it and rate it
> accordingly -- I am not going to mark it stable by hand, so it relies on
> getting enough karma points.
>
> Also, I would be especially thankful if anyone with this [1] hardware
> could confirm if the problem (not necessarily caused by pulseaudio
> itself) appears also in F8. If yes, I consider it a good reason to hold
> the update indefinitely, until it gets resovled.
>
> [1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=428537
>
> Thanks,
> --
> Lubomir Kundrak (Red Hat Security Response Team)

Have you contacted pulseaudio mailing list? My bug [1] got some
attention in bugzilla, and I "wasted" quite some time chasing all
suggestions that I was given there and none was of any use to my
specific bug, it was a good thing that it helped some other people
with similar bugs.

Then I posted a pulseaudio bug on their bug tracker - zero response there.

A week lates (still no reply on their bug tracker) I posted my issue
to mailing list, and I emediately got a really helpful sugestion and
that fixed my issue with PulseAudio under Fedora 8!

So I encourage you save your time and go directly to PA mailing list.

Valent.

[1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=366001


--
http://kernelreloaded.blog385.com/
linux, blog, anime, spirituality, windsurf, wireless
registered as user #367004 with the Linux Counter, http://counter.li.org.
ICQ: 2125241, Skype: valent.turkovic

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Lubomir Kundrak wrote:

On Wed, 2008-01-09 at 09:20 +0100, Valent Turkovic wrote:


Hi,
I saw that Pulse Audio 0.9.8 got released two months ago:
http://pulseaudio.org/milestone/0.9.8
and I see on my Fedora 8 that we still have 0.9.7

$ pulseaudio --version
pulseaudio 0.9.7

Will there be an upgrade soon on Fedora 8 to Pulse Audio 0.9.8?

Lost of issues have been fixed in new Pulse Audio so users like me who
have issues with Pulse Audio would appreciate the much needed upgrade.



Pulseaudio 0.9.8 will hit testing soon. Please test it and rate it
accordingly -- I am not going to mark it stable by hand, so it relies on
getting enough karma points.



I grabed pulseaudio-0.9.8-4.fc8.1 from koji and the results are:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=321611 seems to be fixed for me.
It now detects my tv card as input source (0.9.7 did not).
Process name is now pulseaudio instead of exe.
I wanted to test the avahi autodetect feature but could not because
paprefs is still at 0.9.6 (even in rawhide) and this version does not
provide this option.

I have not noticed any regressions.

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Let me correct myself the 0.9.6 version in rawhide provides it but the
svn snaphost shipped in f8 does not please consider updating this too.


--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

On Mon, 2008-01-14 at 11:16 +0100, drago01 wrote:
> Lubomir Kundrak wrote:
> > On Wed, 2008-01-09 at 09:20 +0100, Valent Turkovic wrote:
> >
> >> Hi,
> >> I saw that Pulse Audio 0.9.8 got released two months ago:
> >> http://pulseaudio.org/milestone/0.9.8
> >> and I see on my Fedora 8 that we still have 0.9.7
> >>
> >> $ pulseaudio --version
> >> pulseaudio 0.9.7
> >>
> >> Will there be an upgrade soon on Fedora 8 to Pulse Audio 0.9.8?
> >>
> >> Lost of issues have been fixed in new Pulse Audio so users like me who
> >> have issues with Pulse Audio would appreciate the much needed upgrade.
> >>
> >
> > Pulseaudio 0.9.8 will hit testing soon. Please test it and rate it
> > accordingly -- I am not going to mark it stable by hand, so it relies on
> > getting enough karma points.
> >
> >
> I grabed pulseaudio-0.9.8-4.fc8.1 from koji and the results are:
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=321611 seems to be fixed for me.
> It now detects my tv card as input source (0.9.7 did not).
> Process name is now pulseaudio instead of exe.
> I wanted to test the avahi autodetect feature but could not because
> paprefs is still at 0.9.6 (even in rawhide) and this version does not
> provide this option.
> I have not noticed any regressions.

Thanks a lot.

Lennart; Would it make sense to update also paman paprefs pavucontrol
and pavumeter (have I missed some?) to corresponding versions?
(padevchooser seems to be post-last-release snapshot).

--
Lubomir Kundrak (Red Hat Security Response Team)

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

drago01 wrote:

Lubomir Kundrak wrote:

On Wed, 2008-01-09 at 09:20 +0100, Valent Turkovic wrote:


Hi,
I saw that Pulse Audio 0.9.8 got released two months ago:
http://pulseaudio.org/milestone/0.9.8
and I see on my Fedora 8 that we still have 0.9.7

$ pulseaudio --version
pulseaudio 0.9.7

Will there be an upgrade soon on Fedora 8 to Pulse Audio 0.9.8?

Lost of issues have been fixed in new Pulse Audio so users like me who
have issues with Pulse Audio would appreciate the much needed upgrade.



Pulseaudio 0.9.8 will hit testing soon. Please test it and rate it
accordingly -- I am not going to mark it stable by hand, so it relies on
getting enough karma points.



I grabed pulseaudio-0.9.8-4.fc8.1 from koji and the results are:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=321611 seems to be fixed for
me.

It now detects my tv card as input source (0.9.7 did not).
Process name is now pulseaudio instead of exe.
I wanted to test the avahi autodetect feature but could not because
paprefs is still at 0.9.6 (even in rawhide) and this version does not
provide this option.

I have not noticed any regressions.


I did the same update from koji on F8 and having no problems, although I had no
problems with 0.9.7 except that padevchooser does not save the default device
for new streams and this did not change.


I have both SB Audigy (snd-emu10k1) and Intel 82801BA/BAM AC97 (snd-intel8x0),
still working the same with 0.9.8 as 0.9.7.


--
Andrew Farris <lordmorgul@gmail.com> <ajfarris@gmail.com>
gpg 0xC99B1DF3 fingerprint CDEC 6FAD BA27 40DF 707E A2E0 F0F6 E622 C99B 1DF3
No one now has, and no one will ever again get, the big picture. - Daniel Geer
---- ----

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list