Re: Please test AirPrint on Natty and Oneiric
Hi Till, On Jun 28, 2011 10:31 AM, Till Kamppeter till.kamppe...@gmail.com wrote: Before reporting bugs, please check your CUPS package version. It must be 1.4.6-5ubuntu1.3 on Natty and 1.4.6-11 on Oneiric. Wait for the mirrors to catch up if needed. Did you mean -9 for Oneiric? I don't see -11 on Launchpad or Debian PTS (or Incoming), only -9. Cheers, -Dan -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
Re: feature request: 32 vs 64 bit info in System Monitor
On Sun, Jun 26, 2011 at 7:21 PM, Vernon Cole vernondc...@gmail.com wrote: I manage many Ubuntu systems, and I often forget which ones are running 64 bit version of Ubuntu, and which are 32 bit. It would be really nice if there were a quick way to tell. The System tab on System Monitor would be an obvious place. Also, the About Ubuntu link on the Ubuntu Classic session manager might be nice. Solutions involving command line commands and words like usually are not good. In Oneiric, System Settings System Info Overview (the default selection) shows whether the system is 64- or 32-bit via OS type. Cheers, -Dan -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Pulseaudio dependency, if Debian can do it ...
Hi, On Sat, Jun 25, 2011 at 4:21 AM, rosea.grammostola rosea.grammost...@gmail.com wrote: 1) Fedora, OpenSuse and Debian etc. aren't building their distro especially for this group. Not being involved with Fedora or openSUSE closely, I can't comment on them, but Debian doesn't ship a desktop as tightly integrated with PulseAudio because the objective of offering a streamlined desktop environment based on GNOME isn't the top priority. 2) Why make it more troublesome for a group of users when it is not needed and other distros are showing it can be done without hurting the usability of the Desktop? There has never been an intentional effort in Ubuntu to sabotage the removal of pulse, rather there were no resources to better integrate its alternatives (be they a complete removal of pulse or a drop-in replacement, which to this day, still doesn't exist). 3) Shouldn't components in the Desktop be able to be removed as much as possible? Just as a matter of Unix / Linux principle or doing things right? As a matter of principle, this approach is ideal. Pragmatically it's not straightforward at all. Consider the case of removing ALSA and replacing it with OSSv4: it's not for the faint-of-heart and requires a tremendous amount of corner-case awareness not to let certain applications fall through the cracks. Or if you'd rather look higher in the software stack, consider the case of replacing Evolution with another calendar+email app that retains indicator functionality. Doing things right /could/ imply providing full functionality or being a drop-in replacement, but those approaches might not mesh with the rest of the environment, and then you're faced with changing the entire environment. 4) Maybe it's not your focus group of users and you don't care, but you probably don't have an idea about how many people in the Ubuntu community are working very hard to make Ubuntu good for music (home)recording, via bugreports, package building, PPAs, Ubuntu Studio, documentation etc. No, you're right in that I don't have an idea about how many people in the community are working on improving the distribution, but I don't believe that is the objective here, which is to contribute those fixes back to the appropriate level. Things that improve pulse as a whole go to upstream pulse; things that improve the base packaging go to Debian; things that improve the integration into Ubuntu go to Ubuntu. The idea is not to strike Ubuntu as a choice but to realize that this distribution may not be the ideal choice. As you allude to later, it's certainly possible to make Ubuntu do things, but the distribution itself fits on one 700 MB CD image, and in those constraints we must consider the likely computing needs of an audience. That said, it's possible to create metapackages that contain information about conflicting with other packages or providing certain functionality (I'm touching a bit on the Debian packaging terminology), but to create a streamlined solution like (the original) 64Studio really requires things like a realtime kernel, the assortment of JACK/2-based applications, and so on. That's actually the intent of the Ubuntu Studio derivative. Fedora uses GNOME, Arch Linux uses GNOME, OpenSuse uses GNOME, Debian uses GNOME etc, but it is still good possible to remove Pulseaudio. Apparently those developer teams are seeing an advantage of the ability to remove Pulseaudio. And I think, even if there was not a obvious reason why people should want that, that is a general good and clean way to handle things in the world of Linux Desktop. I don't think those developers necessarily see an overt advantage of removing pulse. As far as I know, none of them ship indicators in their default environments, and indicator-sound is a significant part of the default Ubuntu experience. Arguably indicator-sound could be extended to work directly with the ALSA hw ctl layer, and if you know people who are willing to prioritize that use case, I'm sure Connor C would be happy to discuss the merits and drawbacks of said approach and move forward. The fact is that a group of users wants to be able to remove Pulseaudio. The question is why this is possible on other GNOME distros but not on Ubuntu? Is there a way to make this possible on Ubuntu also? Are you willing to make this possible? I presume you're asking whether it's possible to integrate methods to make it feasible with one click or something close to it, and if so, yes, there are people willing to work on, but we need those people to step up and act more visibly with the Ubuntu development team. The ubuntu-audio-dev team on Launchpad is a good place to begin detailed discussions. Cheers, -Dan -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Pulseaudio dependency, if Debian can do it ...
Hi, On Jun 24, 2011 7:10 AM, rosea.grammostola rosea.grammost...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, A group of (professional) Linuxaudio users prefer to have a system without Pulseaudio. How nice Pulseaudio can be for 'consumer audio', it can be a pain on a professional audio system. That's why some people prefer to stick with just ALSA and JACK. On most systems this is not a problem at all, like Fedora and even on Debian, but on Ubuntu it is. Perhaps Ubuntu does not best serve this audience? A derivative like Ubuntu Studio may be more conducive (or perhaps a Debian blend or derivative). Please keep in mind that Debian and Ubuntu don't target the same default desktop users, thus we don't make the same audio stack decisions for Debian as we do for Ubuntu (several of us are quite involved in both). This raises the question why ubuntu-desktop has Pulseaudio integrated in such a way that almost the whole desktop system seems to depend on it. There isn't a good way to remove Pulseaudio from Ubuntu! This is very ugly and not a good way to handle things in the Linux world. For GNOME, it's an upstream decision that makes sense for us as a downstream. Every so often a thread resurfaces with sentiments similar to yours. I recommend that you check the list archives from October 2009, where I have answered the question already. Why? If you can remove pulseaudio easily on Debian, why is it so freaking hard on Ubuntu? What is the best place to report this major bug? See above; the two distributions target different desktop users NY default. Cheers, -Dan -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: jags too old on lucid
On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 10:24 AM, Peng Yu pengyu...@gmail.com wrote: I'm wondering if anybody can get JAGS updated on lucid. Thanks. Please see https://help.ubuntu.com/community/UbuntuBackports#How%20to%20request%20new%20packages -Dan -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: GNOME Panel dropped in 11.10
On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 5:52 AM, Francis Bolduc fbol...@gmail.com wrote: ... I'm a software developer and I like to have updated development tools every 6 months ... I'm left with this dilemma. Neither Unity nor GNOME Shell fits my needs. What am I going to do in 6 months? A false dichotomy. You have numerous choices if you wish to stay with Ubuntu and its derivatives: * Don't upgrade * Install a parallel desktop environment, e.g., kubuntu-desktop, and evaluate its workflow with your current one * Pin (apt-dpkg) your desktop environment and perform an upgrade * Upgrade only your development tools Granted, some of those options require more intervention. -Dan -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Natty with Stock Linux 2.6.38 Awful - Custom 2.6.39-rc5 Great
On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 10:53 PM, Tony Atkinson tatkinson...@googlemail.com wrote: Tomorrow, I'm going to be compiling a vanilla .38 kernel, to try and narrow down exactly where the issue with the natty kernel is, but thought I'd post here first, prior to filing a bug, just to make sure this is not a known issue To note, vanilla mainline builds are available, too, for precisely this sort of regression narrowing; see http://kernel.ubuntu.com/~kernel-ppa/mainline/. -Dan -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: RT_GROUP_SCHED kernel option makes JACK unusable in Ubuntu Natty
On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 11:33 PM, Ronan Jouchet ro...@jouchet.fr wrote: I confirm 2.6.37-9.22~ppa1 from abogani PPA (RT_GROUP_SCHED disabled) works fine. I will leave the decision to Alessio (or somebody else from the kernel team) to close or not https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux/+bug/690010 , since a proper solution implementing cgroups management may be preferable and implementable. As Paul alludes to, changing this Ubuntu kernel config option doesn't resolve the real issue, and I wouldn't be keen on changing the option that clearly works for other applications. -Dan -- Ubuntu-Studio-devel mailing list Ubuntu-Studio-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-studio-devel
Re: udev ignore_device removed why?
On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 2:55 PM, pere lengo perele...@hotmail.com wrote: I've tried to make a rule for udev, but it doesn't work because in version 10.0.4 the OPTION ignore_device has been removed. Rationale given in the release notes for udev 148, see http://lwn.net/Articles/364728/ Would next udev version allow to use ignore_device?? Highly unlikely -Dan -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: is python-pymtp maintained?
On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 9:30 AM, Fergal Daly fer...@esatclear.ie wrote: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/pymtp/+bug/575091 is 4 months old, has 2 patches to fix this library (which is completely broken in lucid) but no one on the Ubuntu side has responded, Alas, I'm sure this is due to resource constraints (i.e., fewer active and able maintainers in Ubuntu for the huge pool of universe sources). Thanks for raising it, however. Looking at the patch, much of it seems to be unnecessary whitespace changes, which explodes the diff. The actual changes themselves seem reasonable, but there needs to be a lot of testing for both Maverick and Lucid at this point. If patches can be generated against the Maverick and Lucid sources separately and posted to the bug report, that would help tremendously. The changes would need to include the relevant bit from Debian's 0.0.4-2 upload, too. Best, -Dan -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: is python-pymtp maintained?
On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 10:17 AM, Fergal Daly fer...@esatclear.ie wrote: The first attachment is a patch (not a new version of the file) and has no extraneous whitespace. I see only one attachment for that bug report, https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/pymtp/+bug/575091/+attachment/1535455/+files/pymtp_patched.py, which doesn't seem to be a patch but in fact a complete source file (sha256sum): 4ce862a14a0041bb9b6c447959930482291b8d73ef6ed7cfb1b0b2e03b3d5543 pymtp_patched.py So I claim that no testing whatsoever was done on this library before now, I don't see why that suddenly becomes a barrier, I believe there has been a misinterpretation of my response, which was simply a set of points to take into consideration when going through the StableReleaseUpdates procedure. Best, -Dan -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Defaults and behaviour of PC Speaker in future Ubuntu *Server* releases
On Sun, Sep 12, 2010 at 2:29 AM, Yaniv Aknin ya...@aknin.name wrote: (2) Due to unknown reasons, removing the blacklist is insufficient to return PC speaker functionality, as can be seen at #398161 and especially #486154. pcspkr doesn't drive all hardware, and the emergence of HDA (and consequently the corresponding beep driver) has further complicated that picture. Fortunately, one can reenable the beep driver at runtime via a sysfs echo. Of course for non-HDA hardware the picture is still as craptastic. Which leads me to argue: (2) Regardless of whether the PC speaker is good or bad, it shan't be *difficult*. If a Desktop user wants the PC Speaker to work, it should be as simple as removing a line in the blacklist, at worst (could be even easier). Since this is not about the technical act of fixing the bug but about the policy act of deciding what to do about it at all, I'm taking this here. There are, of course, uses of the speaker and/or beep. Changing the default behavior belongs in a script, and whether the speaker and/or beep being disabled is a bug is actually up for discussion - perhaps not in this thread - but assuming it isn't a bug, what needs to be added to the server seed to [run a script to] reenable it? Best, -Dan -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Defaults and behaviour of PC Speaker in future Ubuntu *Server* releases
Daniel Chen writes: Fortunately, one can reenable the beep driver at runtime via a sysfs echo. On Sun, Sep 12, 2010 at 12:15 PM, Akkana Peck akk...@shallowsky.com wrote: Could you elaborate on that? I'm not having much luck googling, just a few people saying they couldn't find a command that worked. Noting that my above statement refers specifically to HDA beep, please see bug 582350 as pertains to Maverick. The sysfs bit is /sys/module/snd_hda_intel/parameters/beep_mode. Also note that the entire beep maze is both hardware- and configuration-dependent. The lack of beep is definitely specific to Ubuntu kernels. I haven't done due diligence regarding inspecting kernel configs for other popular modern desktop distros, so I don't know offhand if their values match Ubuntu's. I also don't know if others blacklist identical kernel modules. If I build my own kernel.org kernel, beeps work fine; but Ubuntu kernels, even with the pcspkr module loaded, mostly don't beep. Are you using an identical kernel configuration? What are the remaining details of the test environment? I have a feeling this discussion is beyond the scope of this thread, so please feel free to continue it on the kernel-team or ubuntu-audio-dev mailing list. I'd love to see a reliable/scriptable way of enabling pcspkr, as I'm sure would the other people commenting in the various bug reports. Bug 486154, especially, is full of suggestions on elaborate workarounds that work for some people but not for others. Right, this is due to hardware and configuration maze (hence the effort to unify it in 2.6.35+). Best, -Dan -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: is sawfish maintained on ubuntu?
On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 11:23 PM, Fergal Daly fer...@esatclear.ie wrote: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/sawfish/+bug/433358 Thanks for bringing this bug to our attention. I have taken ownership of this report, have isolated a git changeset, and will be working through a StableReleaseUpdate candidate for Maverick, Lucid, and Karmic. -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Is Ubuntu commited to free software?
On Wed, Jun 9, 2010 at 12:57 PM, Danny Piccirillo danny.picciri...@ubuntu.com wrote: * This would require supporting the linux libre kernel (it doesn't have to be by default, but the option should be available. On Wed, Jun 9, 2010 at 1:19 PM, Scott Kitterman ubu...@kitterman.com wrote: No. It doesn't. That kernel removes the ability to run non-free drivers. The exact same amount of non-free code runs if you don't have any installed. Just about the last thing Ubuntu needs is the maintenance overhead of another kernel that only serves ideological purposes. Noting what Scott mentioned above, I'll add that *changing hardware enablement fundamentally alters an Ubuntu experience*. Let's pause and think on what removing support for non-Free drivers actually means. Suppose you're low-vision/hard-of-seeing/blind, and you need a screen reader. Now let's remove a nontrivial number of sound driver blobs[0]. That pretty much neuters any sort of session accessibility you're going to get, no? That was a fairly specific use case, but it's fairly trivial to see how providing an easy path for people to install these markedly different *foundational* components into an Ubuntu system is a very slippery slope to madness. Best, -Dan [0] Now, I know that there is the option delimited within the F6 menu, but Linux-libre appears to be much more comprehensive, e.g., http://www.fsfla.org/svn/fsfla/software/linux-libre/scripts/deblob-2.6.34. -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Linux Kernel
On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 5:05 AM, Volovikov Taras wizard160...@mail.ru wrote: Which version of the kernel you plan to include in Ubuntu 10.10? I believe that if you want to use btrfs, the better it will be 2.6.35 or later. https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel/2010-May/030764.html -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Removal of PulseAudio from Ubuntu
On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 6:53 PM, I.E.G. kopci...@gmail.com wrote: Sorry for the rambling , non technical dissertation but I felt we the users(if I dare speak for more than myself) needed to be heard . For a long time I have felt that there is an artificial disconnect between users and developers. Since when are developers not users? Of course people want things to Just Work and will choose the path of least resistance, but it's worth pointing out that in the case of Linux audio the paths are neither straight nor understandable. In the case of stuttering audio on modern laptops and desktops, a fix was committed upstream last Tuesday. It may be integrated into Lucid's kernel after sufficient testing. Certainly it will land for Maverick. The best path forward is to file a bug against the alsa-driver source package in Launchpad so that we have your specific hardware information to effect workarounds and/or fixes. Best, -Dan -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Including a system-wide pulseaudio equalizer
On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 11:03 AM, sam tygier samtyg...@yahoo.co.uk wrote: The solution to bugs like this is to make apport upload the equalizer settings (i think it already does with the volume settings). It uploads the *alsa* mixer perspective, which may be desynced from pulse's idea of those settings (which shouldn't be the case, but...). Best, -Dan -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Including a system-wide pulseaudio equalizer
On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 11:36 AM, sam tygier samtyg...@yahoo.co.uk wrote: is it technically possible/easy to upload pulse's state as well? Sure, pacmd list-sinks. Best, -Dan -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Including a system-wide pulseaudio equalizer
On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 8:15 AM, Chandru chandru...@gmail.com wrote: I've been using https://code.launchpad.net/~psyke83/+junk/pulseaudio-equalizer with Lucid and found it sufficiently capable. It will be really nice if this can be included in universe for Maverick and gradually made available as part of the default installation in future releases once it gets further polished with community's feedback. Two thoughts: This would entail switching to the master (or trunk) branch of upstream git, correct? Maverick currently tracks the stable-queue branch. Also, this should be packaged and submitted for inclusion into the Ubuntu repositories following procedure (https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuDevelopment/NewPackages). Best, -Dan -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Including a system-wide pulseaudio equalizer
On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 10:30 AM, Chandru chandru...@gmail.com wrote: My suggestion was to just get the app into the official repos initially. Based on Daniel's reply I've sent a mail to the developer suggesting him to submit the application. It would be even more useful to work alongside him to get it into Maverick. Best, -Dan -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Including a system-wide pulseaudio equalizer
On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 1:08 AM, Conn O'Griofa connogri...@gmail.com wrote: [1] This branch may be obsolete now that the equalizer is included upstream by default - I haven't followed developments recently. Here it is: http://gitorious.org/pulseaudio-equalizer Right, which is now in the master trunk of upstream pulseaudio git. Best, -Dan -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Removal of PulseAudio from Ubuntu
On Thu, May 6, 2010 at 1:19 AM, Ryan Oram r...@infinityos.net wrote: Until the implementation of OSS4 is ready and tested, infinityOS will continue to use pure ALSA. How will you determine that the implementation of OSS4 is ready and tested? Best, -Dan -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: RE: Removal of PulseAudio from Ubuntu
On May 6, 2010 8:11 PM, Chris Jones chrisjo...@comcen.com.au wrote: Since upgrading to Lucid, I can no longer use Pulse audio with VLC as it skips beyond use. I have to configure VLC to putput to ALSA as an alternative which works perfectly. Up until Lucid's release, I've had no real big issues with Pulseaudio. -- Chris Jones Photographic Imaging Professional and Graphic Designer ABN: 98 317 740 240 Photo Resolutions Web: http://photoresolutions.freehostia.com Email: chrisjo...@comcen.com.au -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: RE: Removal of PulseAudio from Ubuntu
(Grr, Android mail clients) Have you filed a bug report against the alsa-driver source (or alsa-base binary) package? On May 6, 2010 8:11 PM, Chris Jones chrisjo...@comcen.com.au wrote: Since upgrading to Lucid, I can no longer use Pulse audio with VLC as it skips beyond use. I have to configure VLC to putput to ALSA as an alternative which works perfectly. Up until Lucid's release, I've had no real big issues with Pulseaudio. -- Chris Jones Photographic Imaging Professional and Graphic Designer ABN: 98 317 740 240 Photo Resolutions Web: http://photoresolutions.freehostia.com Email: chrisjo...@comcen.com.au -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Removal of PulseAudio from Ubuntu
On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 7:13 PM, Ryan Oram r...@infinityos.net wrote: It is 2 years old, but the facts in the article above are still completely true. PulseAudio has made essentially zero progress in the last 2 years, which is why it should be abandoned. I feel I am at least somewhat qualified to speak on this subject, having been involved in the (ill?) integration of PA in Ubuntu many releases ago and for x86 driver quirking many years prior and since. Zero progress really is stunningly ill-informed. Yes, there remain problems with BIOS vendors, mainboard integrators, audio drivers, alsa-lib, PulseAudio, application integration, and so on, but to claim zero progress for any part of the audio stack is quite off the mark. The fact of the matter is that audio deficiencies in any popular Linux distribution raise polemics, none of which is truly on-mark. Perhaps I can do a better job of documenting efforts to combat deficiencies, so this thread is as good a place as any to continue. Put another way: there are plenty people who decry the sinkhole, but who's actually fixing the structural problems that led to the sinkhole? For the past ten years I have seen similar cycles of specifications being published (along with errata) and OEMs leaping to implement attractive features at the expense of doing a good job documenting their quirks (much less implementing standard quirk interfaces -- and vendors of usb components are only slightly less worse than pci components). This leads to spaghetti code in audio drivers, some of which are marginally less hair-loss-inducing than others. The traditional ALSA driver semantics are interrupt-based. PulseAudio, with its emphasis on preventing excessive power consumption through timer-based buffering, expects the underlying driver to duly provide precise and accurate information. For the past three years this approach has utterly destroyed any semblance of stability in the audio stack -- for good reason: the drivers incorrectly assumed the underlying hardware duly acted precisely and accurately. We've been fixing these drivers as such symptoms appear, and we're by no means finished -- nor do I expect we'll ever reach such a milestone. What happens when you have hardware or a driver that acts imprecisely and/or inaccurately? You get some utterly disappointing results as exposed through PulseAudio's glitch-free (standard in Karmic and Lucid) mode. Does this mean that PA is faultless? Of course not; we should do a better job, among many things, by reverting to the traditional interrupt mode. Does this mean that the driver should be fixed? Absolutely. Does replacing ALSA wholesale with OSS resolve the issue? No; we'd only replace one problem domain with another, and we'd still need to maintain all versions with ALSA support *and* continue forward with hardware enablement. This means that you now have to sets of mouths to feed. Various upstream developers of programs incorporated in Ubuntu don't necessarily address the complexities of having *supported* derivatives that deviate from Ubuntu's base, and this issue is particularly telling with respect to the audio stack. Canonical has/will recently brought/bring on board knowledgeable audio hackers. I expect the situation to improve, not worsen. While I applaud your efforts to bring a more usable audio experience out-of-box to casual users, I cannot help but muse that our (volunteer) efforts are better spent improving parts of the stack that most need help: ALSA driver and either PulseAudio or Jack Audio Connection Kit. Open up any emulator program on Ubuntu and it will skip like mad. Same with many native games such as Lincity-ng or OpenSonic. This is as most games on Linux depend on sound timing, which the high latency nature of PulseAudio messes up. PA is happy to grant high latency by default because doing so is more friendly to lower power consumption. Various pulse clients (whether frameworks like SDL or OpenAL-soft) have been fixed to properly specify latency requirements and act accordingly. I cannot emphasize enough the need to fix the underlying drivers. A good possible solution would be switching to OSS4 and writing an audio wrapper for it to make it easier for developers to use. OSS4 is much more simplistic and (arguably) cleaner designed then ALSA, which would likely made this an easier task. Your distribution seems like a great place to test such a hypothesis. Please test backward compatibility with native ALSA and PulseAudio applications, too! Best, -Dan -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Removal of PulseAudio from Ubuntu
On Thu, May 6, 2010 at 12:58 AM, Ryan Oram r...@infinityos.net wrote: I apologize if I was frank, but problem with PulseAudio is that it does not always work with existing code. Such is the pain of new code. We face this continually in ALSA and PulseAudio alike, and I don't see how any new framework can be devoid of such pain. Before OSS4 is implemented in infinityOS, I will make sure that everything works out of the box with the OSS4 audio system. It will be What are your test plans for forward compatibility (which is the single largest pain for ALSA)? subject to a considerable amount of testing. This is partly to maintain 100% binary compatibility with Ubuntu. I wish for infinityOS to continue to work with the Ubuntu repos and PPAs as I feel duplication of effort is unnecessary. Leaving aside the nontrivial decision of selecting which PPAs to maintain compatibility with, it's worth noting that you'll be facing a moving target. Which Ubuntu releases do you intend to support in terms of compatibility? Finally, maintaining 100% compatibility is unrealistic. By virtue of using OSS instead of ALSA, you've already increased the test surface enormously such that you'll need to modify certain base packages (if you intend to do things in a manner consistent with Debian Policy). Best, -Dan -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: lucid testreport upgraded 24 march 2010 from karmic
On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 3:22 AM, Rene Veerman rene7...@gmail.com wrote: - soundblaster doesn't work. volume levels are good, card reports no error (in gui at least), yet no sound leaves the speakers... The above description is much too vague. Would you please file a bug report against alsa-driver? (If you have an X-Fi, you may be out of luck unless you were unlucky enough to have one driven by ca0106...but then sounds would be audible). -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: lucid testreport upgraded 24 march 2010 from karmic
On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 1:18 PM, Rene Veerman rene7...@gmail.com wrote: can i assume 'ubuntu-bug alsa-driver' will include the specs of both my sound cards? It will include the necessary information provided that there is not something more nefarious occurring. -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: If Luicd ia a LTS......
On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 12:07 PM, schoappied schoapp...@gmail.com wrote: We all remembered the failure of Hardy as LTS. Firstly, I am going to warn you up front that this response will seem largely defensive, because I have not seen any contributions from you in Lucid's sound stack integration. I am happy to stand corrected, however. That said -- Seriously? Failure? Granted, there are integration problems (still, thanks to derivatives choosing not to ship PulseAudio by default) in 8.04.y and 10.04, but to call the former a failure based on foolhardy perception is rather...foolhardy. Yes, some (non-trivial number) have issues with their sound drivers. However, plenty of people are using Hardy on their desktops with nary a concern. And let's not count the server users, though I don't think you were precisely arguing that point. (At least I hope you weren't.) Bleeding edge sound server Pulseaudio as default (sound horror). Stupid decision imo to implement such a thing in a LTS release. Beta version of Firefox installed (browsing horror). Stupid decision imo to release a LTS with a beta browser. Those decisions were not made lightly. Given the scope of upstream support for those programs, they were the right way forward. At that time the public opinion about Windows Vista was very negative, but Ubuntu missed the chance there and released a LTS version which was not ready for the Desktop. The pulseaudio problems are not even really solved atm (many maudio cards didn't work with pulseaudio on Ubuntu 9.10). Let's pray they have fixed it when Lucid comes out and that they never ever will such Hardy mistakes again! It's highly probable that your poster child, M-Audio cards, will require manual configuration in 10.04 as well. It's well-documented on the Ubuntu wiki under the KarmicCaveats page linked from DebuggingSoundProblems. The point is that neither upstream [ALSA, PulseAudio] has agreed on a fix. All we have are workarounds that make [both] upstream[s] unhappy. You might argue that it's better to ship a better user experience out of the box -- and I won't precisely disagree -- but volunteer distributors and maintainers have to balance support lifetimes and correctness with evolving codebases. I hope you understand that shoehorning a workaround is not the right approach, particularly not for an LTS. There are signs that they learned a bit. Lucid seems to be based on Debian testing and JACK seems to be in main now, which makes it more easy to use Jack with pulseaudio for instance... Yes, yes, let's blast people for being slow to learn. You are forgetting that the difficult work of integrating these bits was done largely by community members who grew tired of people such as yourself just whinging. Please, if you want something to work, pitch in and help fix it. -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: idjc doesn`t work with voip since karmic
On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 8:33 AM, Ralf Eleven ral...@gmx.net wrote: The voip-function in idjc doesn't work. It should work like this: http://www.onlymeok.nildram.co.uk/voip.html This approach will fail because j-a-c-k has not been repromoted to main yet, and thus alsa-plugins cannot be compiled with j-a-c-k support and is missing the plugin. But since Ubuntu karmic, which works with pulseaudio, and also since Debian squeeze there are no ~/.asoundrc files, because there is no program asoundconf in the packet alsa-utils. There is not an ~/.asoundrc by default /ever/. It's a user-created file (whether by hand or by some utility). asoundconf is no longer maintained and was removed from the alsa-utils source package, but one can always construct an asoundrc by hand. The bit about PulseAudio is not really relevant; the real cause is due to missing j-a-c-k in main, so PulseAudio cannot be compiled with j-a-c-k support, etc. Even if j-a-c-k is available in main, you'd still need to configure PulseAudio to use j-a-c-k. (There are unofficial packages that have j-a-c-k support, but they should be unnecessary for Lucid.) I also tried to delate pulseaudio and to install asoundconf from older sources manually, but first it wouldn't be a nice way and second it also doesn't worked. Again, PulseAudio really isn't the cause here but suffers indirectly. If pulseaudio is the soundserver of the future, how to work with voip in idjc and how to record voip? Help get j-a-c-k back into main. Best, -Dan -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: upstream for acl?
On Thu, Feb 4, 2010 at 4:11 PM, Larry D'Anna la...@elder-gods.org wrote: Where can i find the upstream for acl? The package says it's at the xfs project, but I can't find any source for getfacl/setfacl there. Thanks. See /usr/share/doc/acl/copyright: It can be downloaded from http://mirror.its.uidaho.edu/pub/savannah/acl/; One may also use apt-get source acl presuming there's an active deb-src entry for main. A simple find over the extracted source directory reveals the source: acl-2.2.49 $ find -name '*getfacl*' ./getfacl ./getfacl/getfacl.c ./test/sort-getfacl-output ./test/getfacl-noacl.test ./test/getfacl-recursive.test ./man/man1/getfacl.1 Best, -Dan -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: upstream for acl?
On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 12:38 PM, Larry D'Anna la...@elder-gods.org wrote: thanks, but I guess what i should have said is, I want to find the maintainer. I found a bug in it and i want to give him a patch. Either Nathan Scott nathans at debian dot org or Anibal Monsalve Salazar anibal at debian dot org (see PTS, http://packages.qa.debian.org/a/acl.html) -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: upstream for acl?
On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 6:27 PM, Larry D'Anna la...@elder-gods.org wrote: so there's no upstream beyond the debian maintainers? Please note that one of the maintainers, Nathan, appears to (have) work(ed) for SGI. -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: General graphic equaliser in Pulse Audio for Lucid
On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 3:48 AM, Richard Didd richard.d...@ttplabtech.com wrote: Regarding the next release of Ubuntu (Lucid), I was wondering if the most recent version of Pulse Audio will be included. Lucid already ships the most current stable-queue branch of PA (which does not contain the eq code). There are no plans to ship what's in master (which does contain the eq code) unless there is a formal release of it made very soon. Because Lucid is an LTS, we're focusing on stability not the addition of features. Is this something that we can include once development has been completed (there are a few bugs at the moment). The target release should be 10.10 (Lucid+1). Best, -Dan -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Can we get ntfs-3g 2010.1.16 in Lucid?
On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 5:24 PM, Jonathon Fernyhough j.fernyho...@gmail.com wrote: I'd second this. I've done some (admittedly unscientific) testing running two VirtualBox VMs concurrently off the same NTFS disk* (Karmic and Windows 7 on a Lucid host). With 2009.4.4 there was significant lag; programs and menus took a noticeable time to appear. After updating to 2010.1.16 both are purring along nicely, even when the host has disk activity (such as aptitude installing a kernel update) which previously made a single VM lag. Considering how trivial it was to install from source it can't be difficult to include in Lucid? Or do we need to file a request somewhere? There is already http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=560685, so I recommend working as quickly and diligently as possible to get it into Debian testing. Best, -Dan -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Versioning for VLC in Lucid Universe
On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 12:43 PM, Forest Mars for...@mnn.org wrote: Taking a look at http://packages.ubunut.com/lucid/graphics/vlc it indicates the version there is 1.0.4. Generally, don't rely on packages.uc to be the canonical listing. Use LP instead: https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/vlc However when I install from Lucid Universe, I am seeing that it is version 1.0.3. ... Also, dpkg -l | grep vlc indicates: ii libvlc2 1.0.4-2ubuntu1 multimedia player and streamer library ii libvlccore2 1.0.4-2ubuntu1 base library for VLC and its modules rc vlc 1.0.3-1ubuntu2 multimedia player and streamer The available version of the vlc metapackage isn't actually version 1.0.3-1ubuntu2. This dpkg output simply confirms that the removed (but not purged) version on your system is that. You can always confirm via apt-cache policy vlc what /your/ system thinks is available. Best, -Dan -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: proper procedure regarding bug reports
On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 10:47 AM, Shentino shent...@gmail.com wrote: Unfortunately, it recently got the wave-off as now it no longer builds under Lucid and I'm being asked to test a new upstream version, when I know that I uploaded 3:4.7.0-1ubuntu1 last night, so if you're willing to respin your patch against that source version and verify that it works as intended, I'll make sure it gets uploaded. -Dan -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: proper procedure regarding bug reports
On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 11:44 AM, Patrick Freundt patrick.freu...@googlemail.com wrote: You should not only rant at people like Richard Stallman you also need to provide patches like him. I'll ask because the phrasing is ambiguous, and I can't tell whether my cynicism radar is errant. Are you implying that people with upload privileges should be forward-porting patches, etc., too? If so, that's a noble sentiment but sadly unrealistic. If, on the other hand, you are implying that everyone (i.e., the community that does not have upload privileges to Ubuntu proper) could do a better job of pitching in to forward-port, that's quite on the mark. -Dan -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Midnight Commander: bug report and patch
On Thu, Dec 24, 2009 at 11:37 AM, Ben Okopnik b...@linuxgazette.net wrote: I tried reporting this bug in Launchpad more about a week back, and never got any response. Since it's a pretty big one (zip file contents not showing up), I figured I'd send it here; hopefully, someone finds it helpful! There seems to be a workaround in place already, but the actual culprit definitely wasn't fixed. Thanks for chasing it down! I've merged your patch (diff -u tends to be friendlier for me) in the latest upload to Lucid, 3:4.7.0-1ubuntu1. Best, -Dan -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Qt Creator
On Sat, Jan 2, 2010 at 7:07 AM, Dmitry Unruh dmitryun...@googlemail.com wrote: Why in the repositories of Ubuntu Qt Creator is still version 1.2 and not 1.3? $ rmadison qtcreator qtcreator | 1.2.1-3ubuntu1 | karmic/universe | source, amd64, i386 qtcreator | 1.3.0-0ubuntu2 | lucid/universe | source, amd64, i386 Lucid has 1.3.0; perhaps you'd like to request a backport to karmic-backports? See https://help.ubuntu.com/community/UbuntuBackports#How to request new packages Thanks! -Dan -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Heads up: powerdown changes to alsa-base in Lucid/10.04
Hi, folks, [a more complete version of my announcement in #ubuntu-devel on Freenode] Based on the abysmal feedback that we received for Karmic/9.10 regarding powering down HDA controllers after ten idle seconds[0], I've reverted the change in the most recent upload of alsa-driver 1.0.22.1 to Lucid/10.04 and, in doing so, restored the behavior shipped in Jaunty/9.04. So, at the cost of less efficient battery use [for unplugged laptops] one will no longer hear the annoying crackling and popping associated with these HDA controllers. This change was also driven by the fact that Lucid's shipped kernel is highly unlikely to have the necessary patches backported. The good news, OTOH, is that over the past month my fixes for these symptoms (including the infrastructure) have landed in alsa-driver 1.0.22.1 and will be available in crack-of-the-day alsa-driver snapshot builds soon and/or via linux-backports-modules-alsa-lucid-generic. Additionally, there is ongoing work to power down additional nodes for the HDA codecs; please find me on IRC (or leave a note via memoserv) if you wish to help roll out these fixes for your particular hardware. Please have your /proc/asound/card*/codec* handy/pastebinned. Thanks, Dan [0] https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel-discuss/2009-May/008239.html -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: karmic: libghc6-src-exts-dev install failed: missing dependency
On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 11:48 AM, Benedikt Ahrens benedikt.ahr...@gmx.net wrote: installation of libghc6-src-exts-dev fails because of unmet dependencies. Correponding bug report: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/haskell-src-exts/+bug/496274 As I commented, for Karmic you need a simple no-change source rebuild, which makes this a fairly straightforward candidate for a StableReleaseUpdate. -Dan -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Add miredo to the default install.
On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 6:04 PM, Alain Kalker m...@dds.nl wrote: The trouble is: IPv6 is coming, whether anyone cares or not. IPv4 is rapidly running out of addresses, so sooner or later we're going to have to switch. Gently coaxing users to get acquainted with IPv6 is IMO a much better idea than their ISPs dropping letters in their mailboxes one day stating Either switch to IPv6 NOW or lose connectivity. An implication that the 10.04 LTS desktop support timeframe will see an exhaustion of IPv4 addresses would be entirely premature. -Dan -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Add miredo to the default install.
On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 3:24 PM, Harry Strongburg lolwut...@gmail.com wrote: Is anyone else in favour of adding miredo to the default Ubuntu install? Why or why not? Despite using miredo for some time, I propose postponing inclusion of this package in the default desktop seeds until after 10.04. My (perhaps flawed) impression is that many desktop users would not care about IPv6. -Dan -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: karmic trashed in Tomshardware.com
On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 10:07 PM, Tim Hawkins tim.hawk...@me.com wrote: Given the amount of discussion relating to problems with the nVidia drivers in Karmic, could this be a factor in this review.? Given the number of bugs filed incorrectly against the Ubuntu PulseAudio source package involving proprietary graphics drivers, I'm inclined to think there is no mere coincidence. Then again, I've been head-down fixing linux and pulse issues lately, so add your mountain of salt... -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: icewm_1.2.37+1.3.4pre2-3_amd64.deb broken since Karmic release
On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 4:01 PM, Christian Schugitsch i...@schugy.de wrote: Maybe someone has noticed this one: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/icewm/+bug/458100 Yes, and I've requested additional information. -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: PulseAudio Applets
On Sun, Oct 25, 2009 at 6:38 AM, Kyle Amadio kyle.ama...@itvss.com.au wrote: Has anyone else got this problem? - none of my PulseAudio applets work - none of them A bit more detail -- e.g., bug reports -- would be useful. -Dan -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: cancel the 9.10 release... it is not ready
(Sorry for top-posting; bad MTA) Have you filed any bugs WRT PA and mpd? AFAICT, those issues are integration ones, not anything at fault in PA, and there are several workarounds allowing a user to output to PA through mpd. As for Adobe Flash, there is anecdotal evidence that nspluginwrapper is causing issues. If you're on i386, try using adobe-flashplugin (from the partner repository) instead of flashplugin-installer (you'd need to purge this latter package). If you're on amd64, try using the native 64-bit alpha refresh from Adobe's web site instead of flashplugin-installer. Finally, without additional initialization information from PA, we can't diagnose why your sound devices aren't being recognized by PA. Please see https://wiki.ubuntu.com/PulseAudio/Log . Thanks again for helping improve Ubuntu! -Dan On Oct 26, 2009 7:08 AM, Dirk Hoeschen m...@dirk-hoeschen.de wrote: Hi all, I am using Ubuntu since 3 Years. I would consider myself as a advanced linux-user and professional software developer. Just to check the new version, I migrated two 9.4 Systems to 9.10 and installed a Karmic Beta on a fresh system. Now (3 days before the release) karmic seems to be unready. Even if the system is stable, I found many bugs and inconsistent issues. On several systems there are error messages with timeouts. waiting for /disk/uuid/23wefsdfsdtgqweqrqwe or so. When the ugly white ubuntu logo disappears i get some normal status messages and the the screen gets dark for 15 Seconds until dark and unfriendly login screen appears. After all... I have the imagination, that the boot process is not faster. The user dialogs for several subsystems are not ready yet. For example... the old dialogs for setting detailed user rights or changing the welcome screen are not included. On two systems with Nvidia cards, the hardware detection tells me that no proprietary drivers are needed. Nvidia drivers must be installed by hand. The greatest mess is pulseausio. Usually I uninstall pulseaudio. Otherwise I can not use mpd and flash crashes randomly. In Karmic pulsaudio seems to be even more buggy. Eample: I have a realtek onboard soundcard and an a USB headset. Alsa seems to initialize both cards correctly. But pulseaudio randomly detects sometimes only one card, both cards or no card at all. Why don't you use alsa by default? I really like to persuade people to use ubuntu. But as long as it looks unready it will strengthen their opinion, that linux is only for nerds. Pleas learn your lesson from the debian community and release a new version only if its ready. -- regards... Dirk Dossestraße 6 10247 Berlin Tel.: 030 39 20 56 21 Mobil. 0151 20 500 462 Fax: 030 39 20 56 22 Web: www.dirk-hoeschen.de * -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: PulseAudio Managers
On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 12:14 AM, Paul Smith p...@mad-scientist.us wrote: time, but this change looks like a dud to me. Clearly the right way to debug this is to comment out the patch in debian/series and see why pa_streq() is being passed crap. Anyone with bt hardware and valgrind up for it? http://launchpadlibrarian.net/32493850/Stacktrace.txt -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Pulse audio being disabled
(MTA constraints) What do you mean by disabled? On Oct 15, 2009 8:27 AM, John Vivirito gnomefr...@gmail.com wrote: I have seen in last few releases that PA gets disabled when i reboot. This is not due to updates or reboot i dont think since it happens all the time after updates than reboot. -- Sincerely Yours, John Vivirito https://launchpad.net/~gnomefreak https://wiki.ubuntu.com/JohnVivirito Linux User# 414246 How can i get lost, if i have no where to go -- Metallica from Unforgiven III -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Karmic Usplash update from 0.5.4.0 to 0.5.4.1 on 10/9/09
On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 2:13 PM, Thomas Doyle t...@rochester.rr.com wrote: Today an update of Karmic Usplash causes my Ctrl+Alt+F1-F6 to show garbled symbols that look like blue Chinese letters and no Login Prompt. I narrowed it down to usplash by installing updates one at a time and then rebooting until the tty was no longer working. I was wondering if this had anything to do with the fact I have a Nvidia grapics card using the proprietary 185 drivers. Are you certain that reverting the proprietary drivers to 185.18.36-0ubuntu3 results in the same corruption? -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Pulse audio
2009/10/10 Lukas Hejtmanek xhejt...@ics.muni.cz: not so fast. gnome-settings-daemon tries to connect to pulse. multimedia keys work no more without pulse. gnome-volume-control does nothing without pulse. I can't reproduce any of these symptoms with PA completely disabled (no autospawn, PA killed). I had no problems with pure alsa. Which of course has absolutely no bearing at all with whether ALSA needs to be fixed. -Dan -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Pulse audio
2009/10/10 Lukas Hejtmanek xhejt...@ics.muni.cz: hmm, let me see. ALSA is broken. OK. How do we fix it? Insert new layer between ALSA and Apps. (PA). Oh no, PA is also broken. (as you stated that PA sooner or later solves its problems). So I should ask, why should we fix PA rather than fix ALSA? You don't seem to be reading closely. No one is fixing PA _instead of_ ALSA. Bugs are being fixed throughout the stack. It's not a zero-sum game, so stop making it seem so. -Dan -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Pulse audio
On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 8:14 AM, Vincenzo Ciancia cian...@di.unipi.it wrote: The real problem that nobody seemed ever to be getting is that when you introduce huge regressions, then you probably should 1) either not distribute the software yet 2) or put more energy into bug fixing for the particular software, or at least have strong, or 3) have convincing reasons for forcing people to enjoy the regressions while they could as well live happily with the previously used one, or 4) make it easy for people to try the new solution, and if it fails, revert to the old All valid points, but: (1) is a catch-22: software does not get fixed if no one uses it. You need real, difficult bugs to be reported, i.e., real testing. (2) requires that clueful people dedicate resources. Resources are not just economic. As I've stated previously, finding people who know the stack intimately is nontrivial. (4) has always been possible. It has always been easy to use PulseAudio and discover its integration deficiencies. It has not always been easy to disable PulseAudio, but it certainly remains straightforward for a savvy user: touch ~/.pulse_a11y_nostart echo autospawn = no|tee -a ~/.pulse/client.conf killall pulseaudio video calls. I never succeded in having it work for voice/video. And it is so badly broken in other areas I really wonder how you all can be so blind. You seem to use you all as if you can't effect change within the source development. Asking users to start contributing proves that there is no sufficient manpower to fix bugs. But perhaps people could live without the new software and related regressions? Now in the case of pulseaudio, for me, There has always been a manpower issue. Realistically, people need to step up. I'm a bit tired of spending all my free time doing this for naught. Living without PulseAudio is possible, but which bugs would you prioritize? For instance, how easily would you find bugs in alsa-lib and linux if you don't have hard but useful test cases? Empirically, not easily at all. Significant bugs in both alsa-lib and linux sat undiscovered and unfixed for _eleven years_ before PulseAudio finally revealed them. But are there experimetnal measurements of the impact the introduction of pulseaudio had in hardy on users? Empirically, I saw that it broke skype for everybody I knew. No need for experimental; just look at all the bug reports filed affecting flashplugin-nonfree, nspluginwrapper, firefox-3.0, alsa-lib, and pulseaudio. The sad thing is that we could have shipped a two-line change to /etc/pulse/default.pa that would have alleviated nearly all of the (users') showstoppers. The change remains in my pulseaudio/hardy bzr branch. Skype fundamentally misused the alsa-lib API. PulseAudio broke Skype is a horrible non-example. -Dan -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Pulse audio
On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 4:23 PM, Martin Olsson mn...@minimum.se wrote: Sound was broken for me in all releases before hardy and then in hardy it worked _perfectly_ with Skype, Flash etc. Sound Again, just because it worked for you does not mean that it wasn't broken. If you care to look outside your hardware and your configuration, you'll see it clearly. notice; ALSA did everything I ever wanted from it. Anyway, then came jaunty and it was broken again. Now in karmic alpha I got audio back but I got these extremely load sparks and cracks which give me a really poor audio experience. I'm not surprised that ALSA did everything [you] ever wanted from it. However, it does not change that there were latent bugs. Clearly they existed despite ALSA working for you. As for Karmic, are you using the ubuntu-audio-dev PPA? If not, you should. By now it's obvious that karmic as well with line up along with the releases that did not reach back up to the level where ALSA was for me. I honestly wonder, when will it stop? Pretty clearly, you can continue to use Hardy. When you choose to test a development release that becomes a stable release, you choose to test an entirely different stack. Developments are quick in the audio world. You may not follow the git commits and the breakages - and you shouldn't be required to - but just because things appear to continue to be broken doesn't mean no one cares or no one is working to fix the regressions. I have a _lot_ of respect for the work that the Ubuntu audio team (and Lennart) is doing but the TB decision to accept PA into Ubuntu was a _BIG_ mistake. The appropriate action would have been to talk some sense into upstream. If you How do you intend to talk some sense into upstream? Upstream, presuming you mean PulseAudio, is _one_ project. Its success in any distribution depends on perfect alignment of the layers beneath it: linux, alsa-lib(, and to some extent, alsa-plugins). Every current desktop Linux distribution ships a different combination of stack components. Drilling down, even the linux configurations are different. Even the compiler flags are different. A more persuasive test is to take the precise Fedora 12 configuration of PulseAudio and demonstrate that it works remarkably better in Ubuntu Karmic than Ubuntu Karmic's. In other words, you need to maintain the precise configuration across the board before you can really say something is broken and thus needs to be beaten into upstream. I was very glad that Canonical posted a job listing for Desktop Architect – Sound Experience recently, clearly someone is noticing this and pulling the right strings. My understanding is that it is more a UI position. I do definitely think following upstream is the only sensible thing to do but not to follow them into an 18 month walk in the valley of death without water. I don't think the situation is nearly as bleak as you paint it here, but I caution you to consider the myriad hardware combinations that wreak havoc on the default PA configuration. In other words, it may suck for you, but it sucks a whole lot worse for people in the trenches, because there are thousands of you with your craptastic hardware, and the people in the trenches have to balance thousands of configurations. -Dan -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Pulse audio
On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 9:20 AM, Remco remc...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 14:40, Daniel Chen seven.st...@gmail.com wrote: The sad thing is that we could have shipped a two-line change to /etc/pulse/default.pa that would have alleviated nearly all of the (users') showstoppers. The change remains in my pulseaudio/hardy bzr branch. Why? What? -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Pulse audio
On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 4:59 PM, Remco remc...@gmail.com wrote: Why has it not been changed in Hardy? Did it break other stuff? Firstly, it was too late to make the change. Secondly, it breaks with upstream's (PA's) adamant policy that (ALSA) hw: be used by default, not dmix: or dsnoop:. -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Pulse audio
2009/10/7 Lukas Hejtmanek xhejt...@ics.muni.cz: why there is now hard-coded pulse audio in Ubuntu/Karmic? Simply, this approach is upstream's, and it makes sense resource-wise to follow upstream. More bluntly, if you'd like to contribute a novel audio framework to Linux, particularly Ubuntu, then here's as good a place to start as any. It would be wise to be aware that many people have tried, failed, and (wrongly) lambasted others. There seem to be many users not willing to use PA at all: http://idyllictux.wordpress.com/2009/04/21/ubuntu-904-jaunty-keeping-the-beast-pulseaudio-at-bay/ Many users not willing to use PA is not a compelling reason to deviate from upstream. Many users not willing to use PA but willing to contribute resources to the development of a better framework is only slightly more compelling than the previous. Finally, many users willing to advance PA is the most compelling reason to fix audio in Linux. Many people miss/ignore the fact that PA has done more to fix ALSA than any other audio framework. Just because ALSA has appeared to be sufficient in the past does not mean that it is, or even will be, sufficient. And it certainly doesn't mean that ALSA is bug-free. What are benefits for ordinary users? No, ordinary user really does not want to send audio through the network. Ordinary user really does not want PA process to eat about 3-5% CPU time (mainly when running on batteries). These are complaints that plague most new software. Given time, they are fixed. -Dan -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Pulse audio
On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 10:28 PM, Null Ack null...@gmail.com wrote: I dont think the ordinary user cares about PulseAudio or other internal components to their desktops. They just want audio to work. Definitely agreed. 1. Not delivering reliable audio experiences in production releases of Ubuntu Certainly, the Ubuntu development team welcomes contributions. The most visible and impacting contributions for Ubuntu audio come in the form of source code changes. Granted, fixing things upstream is generally smiled upon more so than focusing on a particular distribution. In the case of stellar Ubuntu audio bugs, perhaps contributing more than just testing is way forward? 2. A breakdown in the development process where my bug reports and others bug reports remain unresolved, and largely unanswered, except for bug spam messages like I have this too and I think this might be related to buy XYZ. The breakdown can be due to prioritizing. Is your bug the most impacting of all PulseAudio bugs? It's straightforward to say that my bug is truly important to me, but it's often less admissible that the bug only affects a given portion of users who are technically savvy and know of workarounds. I've presented numerous times that fixing the (Ubuntu) Linux audio mess will take a while. This example is certainly not an instant-gratification one. In my mind, the ramp-up is also due to the fact that very few people within the community truly understand the devastating cascade effect of changes to any part of the audio stack. time with testing, but I find the audio bugs go on without resolution from previous cycle experiences. When I try to use it in applications, say warzone2100 I find the sound a garbled inaudible mess. Since bug reports dont seem to be effective, I've tried to get discussion going on if I could take the problems upstream or if they were Ubuntu specific problems but that was also left unanswered. How can you assist in resolving the problems? Firstly, try to pinpoint where in the audio stack the breakage is occurring. Secondly, understand that your workaround is just a workaround and that it may well break numerous other hardware. Thirdly, test your workaround on as many hardware as you can. Other bugs in other internal components are actively resolved during the dev cycle so I think the issues are about a lack of capability in the audio space for Ubuntu. Absolutely. One person volunteering and one person full-time makes for much pain. We all welcome your contributions (including your testing). Please take advantage of the mentoring offered (i.e., consider this an explicit offer for mentoring). -Dan -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Huge instability and insanely large memory footprint in 9.04
On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 11:45 AM, Patrick Goetz pgo...@mail.utexas.edu wrote: 7668 pgoetz 20 0 160m 17m 12m S 1 0.5 42:56.50 pulseaudio Note that you can disable PA's mempool implementation. We also cache /usr/share/sounds/ubuntu/stereo/* . Of course, from your top (not really a good indicator of memory use anyhow; use exmap instead) output, that's not really an issue. There are _lots_ of ways to tweak PA for those people who love knobs. -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Update on audio, call for testers, and ponies
On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 7:04 PM, LoonyPhoenixloonyphoe...@gmail.com wrote: all I liked. Then PCM disappeared and only master volume and per-application volumes remained, and I had to be careful not to go above 85% when setting master volume and I was all right. However, now I have to make sure all applications don't go over 85%, and it's a pain, so I'll wind up disabling flat volumes even though I like them better now. Also, I think the feature I have not seen or heard resounding protest regarding the upstream default to use volume=merge[0]. The handful of Karmic testers (less than one half-dozen who have contacted me directly, though I encourage everyone to publicise her/his discontent with the default on ubuntu-devel-discuss) who are annoyed by it have modified the necessary conffile[0]. However, I am concerned with avoiding serious use case regressions. Many people don't test Karmic until RC, so if they get volume=merge and are dismayed, it will be a bit late to get an idea whether they are just the vocal minority. PulseAudio itself is very, very near to 0.9.16 final, and just about every major set of hourly git commits have been in the ubuntu-audio-dev PPA. The next PA upload to Karmic will break with upstream in that we will set volume=ignore, which is the closest to existing behaviour for all Ubuntu releases shipping PulseAudio. If this behaviour is undesirable, speak now or forever hold your peace. -Dan [0] Quoting from /usr/share/pulseaudio/alsa-mixer/paths/analog-output.conf.common: ; When a device shall change its volume, PA will got through the list ; of all elements with volume = merge and set the volume on the ; first element. If that element does not support dB volumes, this is ; where the story ends. If it does support dB volumes, PA divides the ; requested volume by the volume that was set on this element, and ; then go on to the next element with volume = merge and then set ; that there, and so on. That way the first volume element in the ; path will be the one that does the 'biggest' part of the overall ; volume adjustment, with the remaining elements usually being set to ; some value next to 0dB. This logic makes sure we get the full range ; over all volume sliders and a very high granularity of volumes ; already in hardware. ... ; volume = ignore | merge | off | zero # What to do with this volume: ignore it, merge it into the device ;# volume slider, always set it to the lowest value possible, or always ;# set it to 0 dB (for whatever that means) -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Jack inclusion in Main
[Adding ubuntu-devel@, apologies for resulting cross-posts]
Hi Eric,
On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 4:06 AM, Eric Hedekaraftertheb...@gmail.com wrote:
In Bug #416778 ( https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/416778 ) Loïc Minier has
requested further public discussion on the subject of Jack Audio Server
http://jackaudio.org/ being included in the Main repositories. I was told
Thanks for reviving the discussion!
Other than the jack-audio-connection-kit source itself, JACK in main
touches the following source packages: celt, libffado, libfreebob,
pulseaudio, and xine-lib. The first three are build-deps of JACK; the
last two are targets for enabling the JACK backend (i.e., improving
the experience of people who want PA-JACK functionality) and for
shrinking the Ubuntu source package delta to Debian's.
In terms of increased disc space use, this latter case for PA and
xine-lib really is a non-issue; those additional binary packages for
PA and xine-lib won't be shipped on Ubuntu, Kubuntu, or Xubuntu discs.
In other words, the size of main would grow from the addition of
source for jack-audio-connection-kit, celt, libffado, and libfreebob
and the addition of binaries for libjack{0,-dev}, libcelt{0,-dev},
libffado{0,-dev}, and libfreebob{0,-dev}, but the generated plugins
for PA and xine-lib would be in universe. For both PA and xine-lib,
simply not shipping the respective -jack plugins prevents JACK from
being used as a backend and therefore avoids disturbing the default
user experience. For Ubuntu, Kubuntu, and Xubuntu, there is zero
impact in a default install.
While there is valid concern about continuing the confusion of Linux
audio subsystems, both upstreams for PA and JACK voice their support
for largely separate use cases and are working actively to coordinate
control of audio devices via D-Bus. Furthermore, distro teams
(loosely, Ubuntu, Kubuntu, and Ubuntu Studio here, since they
represent the users of PA, ALSA directly, and JACK, respectively)
realistically focus on what's shipped by default; the community
(slight blurring in terms of Ubuntu Studio) tends to offer assistance
to people who, e.g., customise PA on Kubuntu or Ubuntu Studio.
Thanks,
Dan
--
Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list
Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Update on audio, call for testers, and ponies
On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 11:20 AM, George Farrisfarr...@cc.mala.bc.ca wrote: I'm sure you are aware of this but one never knows. Any comment about whether this is fixed in Karmic? Unfortunately, I have not tested this use case (I don't use that application). Hopefully you will report whether your symptom in Jaunty is alleviated. -Dan -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Update on audio, call for testers, and ponies
Hi folks, Today I updated the PulseAudio snapshot for Karmic in the ubuntu-audio-dev PPA[0] to 0.9.16-test5[1]. This staged update should be considered a poll for deciding whether flat volumes[2] should be shipped enabled by default (in /etc/pulse/daemon.conf). Please respond to the ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list. Please test 0.9.16-test5 rigourously, and file bugs as you encounter them, thanks! Henceforth, Luke and I (and possibly others) will be placing staging versions of related audio software in this PPA. -Dan [0] https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-audio-dev/+archive/ppa . Note that this PPA contains a patched udev. See https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel/2009-August/028688.html for rationale why this backported changeset was rejected. If you do not use surround sound profiles, you can safely ignore this patched udev. [1] Really, it's 0.9.16-test5 just grabbed prior to the git tag being added. [2] https://tango.0pointer.de/pipermail/pulseaudio-discuss/2009-August/004786.html -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Call for Testers: Karmic kernel with sound controller powerdown fixes
Hi Matthew, On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 12:02 PM, Matthew Garrettmj...@srcf.ucam.org wrote: I know that this is a very pedantic point, but when distributing kernel builds (or, indeed, any other GPLed code) it's helpful to include the source (or a pointer to the source) alongside it Right, an obvious oversight on my part. The source for the builds is kept at http://kernel.ubuntu.com/git?p=dtchen/ubuntu-karmic.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/powerdown. Thanks, Dan -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Call for Testers: Karmic kernel with sound controller powerdown fixes
Hi all, Some time ago, I asked[0] for bugs to be reported against Karmic's sound drivers as we move toward improved power savings. Those of you running Karmic on HDA hardware should notice improvements in a test kernel[1]. If you have already filed a bug using the instructions in [0], please follow up in your bug report whether - and to what degree - the test kernel alleviates the popping anomalies. Of particular interest are experiences of netbook owners, e.g., people testing Kubuntu Netbook Edition. Note that only an amd64 kernel is available presently. I am building an i386 one real soon now. Please remember to verify the SHA512SUMs of the downloaded packages. Thanks, Dan [0] https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel-discuss/2009-May/008239.html [1] http://kernel.ubuntu.com/~dtchen/test-kernels/powerdown/ -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: New GDM upload to Karmic
My experiences in Karmic match Max's. On Jul 3, 2009 8:36 PM, Max Bowsher m...@f2s.com wrote: Alexander Sack wrote: On Fri, Jul 03, 2009 at 03:35:10PM -0700, Dean Loros wrote: Greetings. Alexander, I experienced what you describe above when upgrading from old gdm to new gdm, *but* when I later upgraded from one package version of new gdm to a slightly newer one, it killed my session outright. Either way, even triggering the user switch screen in the middle of a jaunty-karmic upgrade would be very bad user experience. Max. -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Replace PulseAudio with OSS v4?
On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 1:43 PM, Davyd McColldav...@gmail.com wrote: Oddly enough, pre-PA, I've never seen any kind of lockup on the SBLive. And You're lucky. Some revisions of the EMU10k did awful, racy things. must point out that the latency issue, whilst more pressing for audio professionals, also steps into the user's realm when a game's audio doesn't align with the graphics on-screen. Someone playing a game, whilst not requiring sub 5ms latency, would probably appreciate sub-50ms latency. Many of the sync issues are PulseAudio _and_ application bugs (e.g., the PulseAudio and xine-lib/MPlayer pause one from last dev cycle), so it isn't that low latency is insignificant on the priority list for PA but that reworking PA's mainloop and timer architectures have the side effect of greatly improving both latency and resource use. able to contribute, if I can work the time in. So, point me at a good place to start, and perhaps I can be more help than just a lazy biscuit next to the hard-working tea. Historically, Ubuntu has carried a shedload of backported (from PA git) patches. I would like, and am working with Luke, to minimise these patches for Karmic's PA. 0.9.16-test1 was tagged recently, and it will be available for testing shortly. Periodically, the question of how to contribute arises, so I'll address it here: If you have C (and/or GTK) or C++ (and/or Qt) experience, then consider working in upstream's Trac bug tracker. Some of the Launchpad bugs affecting the pulseaudio source package are Ubuntu-specific; I'll work on (and welcome assistance in) tagging them as (Ubuntu) distro-specific. As Karmic's pulseaudio source sheds its distro-specific bits, the benefits are apparent, since all Linux distros face similar bugs. If you don't feel comfortable contributing source code, then the Linux audio realm is sorely lacking in test harness(es). There are no unit tests in ALSA, PulseAudio, etc. There are no end-to-end tests defined (e.g., for this new HP Mini, attempt to stream this Ogg Vorbis file to an identical HP Mini over an 802.11g network). All distributions will benefit by discussing and implementing them. -Dan -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Replace PulseAudio with OSS v4?
On Sat, Jun 20, 2009 at 1:47 AM, Danny Piccirillodanny.picciri...@ubuntu.com wrote: PulseAudio is actually a very bad choice in the long term due to horrible latency and lower sound quality, and that we should work to use OSS v4. It's a long read but seems to be worth it. What do others think about this? Adding more layers inevitably results in increased latency if not done correctly. PulseAudio's glitch-free mode addresses the interrupt-based problem in a different fashion. Unfortunately, the state of Linux drivers for common audio hardware in laptops is abysmal. Yes, it's trivial to experience high latency using PulseAudio, but that is not necessarily PulseAudio's fault. If you've seen any of my presentations[0] on audio, you'll walk away seeing that Linux audio is a complicated stack to troubleshoot and to improve incrementally. Ubuntu has shipped with suboptimal configurations in the past, but Jaunty was a fairly significant step forward (although many people will dispute it because sound is broken for me). Karmic, by all indications, will be better by virtue of more people spending cycles fixing bugs in ALSA and PulseAudio. For instance, significant buffering issues and audio anomalies have been identified and are nearly resolved in the common case in Karmic, Rawhide, and elsewhere. Closed-source software continues to be problematic. Lower sound quality is a red herring. ALSA's default resampler has known and quite audible limitations. The available resamplers in PulseAudio demolish the lower sound quality FUD. Jaunty shipped a configuration using a craptastic one in an attempt to balance CPU usage with perceptive quality. Lessons learned: Karmic will ship with a much better (but more CPU-intensive) resampler. Now let's consider why replacing ALSA with OSSv4 in Ubuntu Karmic would be a bad exercise: 1) No upstream mainline Linux support - Canonical and the Ubuntu community would have to devote resources to supporting OSSv4 as out-of-tree software, which is nontrivial for an area as significant as the audio stack. The kernel team's lessons learned in supporting such out-of-tree patches has indicated that no one would rather continue down that road. To date, no one has stepped forward to address the significant architectural concerns with merging OSSv4 into mainline Linux. 2) Lack of feature parity - while some HDA codecs are marginally better supported in OSSv4, that list continues to shrink. Creative X-Fi support, USB, USB MIDI support, to name a few, are consistently better supported in ALSA. Due to sheer momentum, that maintenance pace does not hold for OSSv4. That said, no one is opposed to seeing OSSv4 improve to the point where it can be merged into mainline Linux. From the audio team's perspective, it simply makes support resources sense for Ubuntu and its supported remixes to carry support for ALSA and PulseAudio by default. I'd like to add that if someone wants to see OSSv4 support in Ubuntu, that someone just needs to step up and work in the Ubuntu audio team. I volunteer my spare cycles working on Ubuntu audio, so I see no reason why a motivated and resourceful person cannot do similarly. -Dan [0] http://kernel.ubuntu.com/~dtchen/UDS-Barcelona/ -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Replace PulseAudio with OSS v4?
On Sat, Jun 20, 2009 at 9:53 AM, Davyd McColldav...@gmail.com wrote: I've had an SB Live for ages. One of the most redeeming features of this card is hardware mixing. Meaning that I didn't care about OSS lockups or ALSA's dmix. Too bad that hardware multiopen support comes at a price: all streams are forcibly resampled, reducing audio fidelity. But I digress... I tried using PA's mixing and multiple output to use USB headphones and the onboard Realtek HDA audio. Worked for a while but often left PA locked up. I would have to kill and restart. My nett conclusion is that PA doesn't do well with multiple soundcards, despite the advertisements. That symptom is a combination of outdated ALSA (-kernel, -lib, -plugins) and PulseAudio. I've outlined[0] release schedule misalignments that exacerbate this symptom. So now I use the onboard sound exclusively. PA behaves (mostly) for me, but the sound is a little latent -- and I'm not a person who creates music or anything like that. I can deal with the minor latency because it doesn't really affect me. Someone who mixes digital music on the other hand (and I have a friend who does) can't use PA. PA is not the use case for people mixing digital music. The Linux audio community is finally coming to a consensus that desktop audio is the realm of PulseAudio, and professional audio is the realm of Jack Audio Connection Kit. Interaction between the two is being improved. I would welcome (and I'm sure other users would agree) any subsystem which: 1) Worked (all the time, without random lockup) Difficult to accomplish when the hardware is faulty, which is far more common on older Creative cards than one might think 2) Wasn't latent Different use cases here, see PulseAudio vice JACK 3) Wasn't a mission to set up 4) Just handled mixing 5) Could handle multiple soundcards easily Being improved for both the desktop and for professional audio OSSv4, from the posted article, looks like it handles the average user's requirements quite well. I guess it's up to whether it's worth patching into the Linux kernel for *buntu distros or if the kernel devs want to include it. Well, if you consider the average user not to care about her/his integrated laptop audio or USB headset, sure... dmix to work -- oddly enough, some distros actually have tools to make it work for you. I haven't seen something like that on *buntu Pre-Karmic shipped asoundconf(1). We've stripped it from alsa-utils, because it was becoming increasingly bearish to maintain, and because the magic alsa-lib runes necessary are really PulseAudio's realm. It would indeed be a great step forward to have sound work under Linux in the same manner that windows users are accustomed to: it just does A noble objective. Now who's with me? -Dan [0] http://kernel.ubuntu.com/~dtchen/UDS-Barcelona/ -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Stable 64-bit flash
On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 12:29 PM, Martin Owensdocto...@gmail.com wrote: Although getting the script updated to download the correct version depending on your arch would probably be a better bet, I bet it's also set to be i386 only too. A more clever script would prevent confusion I think. The more clever script approach was tried - and reverted - back in early Jaunty. The current flashplugin-installer package downloads from archive.canonical.com, which cannot distribute non-final Flash releases. -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Stable 64-bit flash
On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 1:32 PM, Danny Piccirillodanny.picciri...@ubuntu.com wrote: No exception can be made there? How have exceptions been made before? Is there some way to work around that? Exceptions to the redistribution terms must be granted by Adobe. -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Stable 64-bit flash
On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 1:45 PM, Danny Piccirillodanny.picciri...@ubuntu.com wrote: Ah, how unfortunate. Would it be impossible to get Adobe to allow this in time? If we could take the file straight from their website, would that be allowed? Regarding whether Adobe will adjust its stance: I don't know. Regarding whether downloading the plugin similar to the old flashplugin-nonfree source approach is a good idea: absolutely not. Doing so raised a crop of errors that were (mostly) resolved by downloading directly from archive.canonical.com. -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Stable 64-bit flash
What two libraries? Also, note that flashplugin-installer depends on ia32-libs, which is unnecessary for the native 64-bit plugin. On Jun 17, 2009 2:41 PM, Bruce Miller subscr...@brmiller.ca wrote: I am puzzled by this thread; but then again, I am a user who lurks on this list, not a developer. Presumably, I do not understand. I run Kubuntu Karmic Alpha2, fully updated. Among the installed packages, I have the following: br...@xenophon:~$ apt-cache show flashplugin-installer Package: flashplugin-installer Priority: optional Section: multiverse/web Installed-Size: 176 Maintainer: Ubuntu MOTU Developers ubuntu-m...@lists.ubuntu.com Original-Maintainer: Bart Martens ba...@knars.be Architecture: amd64 Source: flashplugin-nonfree Version: 10.0.22.87ubuntu2 Replaces: flashplugin ( 6), flashplugin-nonfree Provides: flashplugin-nonfree Depends: nspluginwrapper (= 0.9.91.4-2ubuntu1), ia32-libs (= 2.2ubuntu18), debconf | debconf-2.0, wget, fontconfig Recommends: libasound2-plugins (= 1.0.16) Suggests: firefox, xulrunner-1.9, firefox-3.0, konqueror-nsplugins, x-ttcidfont-conf, msttcorefonts, ttf-bitstream-vera | ttf-dejavu, ttf-xfree86-nonfree, xfs (= 1:1.0.1-5) Conflicts: flashplayer-mozilla, flashplugin ( 6), flashplugin-nonfree ( 10.0.22.87ubuntu2~), libflashsupport, xfs ( 1:1.0.1-5) Filename: pool/multiverse/f/flashplugin-nonfree/flashplugin-installer_10.0.22.87ubuntu2_amd64.deb Size: 19124 MD5sum: 1271e320a25fab0fd29833df2d84f574 SHA1: b0389cb7ba3aaecca59fca1d29c3dcb536cc7eae SHA256: 75b63fd3450c5367fc50811e4e5c2418d42f0d987aa2b6fe31e412de4e31 Description: Adobe Flash Player plugin installer This package will download the Flash Player from the net. It is a Netscape/Mozilla type plugin. Any browser based on Netscape or Mozilla can use the Flash plugin. This package currently supports the following browsers: Mozilla, Mozilla-Firefox, Firefox, Iceweasel, and Iceape. Also Galeon and Epiphany can use the Flash plugin. Konqueror can also use the Flash plugin if konqueror-nsplugins is installed. . WARNING: Installing this Ubuntu package causes the Adobe flash plugin to be downloaded from www.adobe.com. The distribution license of the Adobe flash plugin is available at www.adobe.com. Installing this Ubuntu package implies that you have accepted the terms of that license. Homepage: http://wiki.ubuntu.com/FlashPlayer9 Npp-Applications: ec8030f7-c20a-464f-9b0e-13a3a9e97384, 92650c4d-4b8e-4d2a-b7eb-24ecf4f6b63a, aa5ca914-c309-495d-91cf-3141bbb04115 Npp-Description: Adobe Flash SWF Player (http://www.adobe.com) Npp-File: libflashplayer.so Npp-Mimetype: application/x-shockwave-flash Npp-Name: Adobe Flash Player (installer) Bugs: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+filebug Origin: Ubuntu The following appears to be the latest so-called Alpha version available directly from the Adobe web site: http://download.macromedia.com/pub/labs/flashplayer10/libflashplayer-10.0.22.87.linux-x86_64.so.tar.gz A file compare shows that the two libraries are identical. Does this not mean that the Ubuntu repositories are already providing the most recent Adobe 64-bit flash? -- Bruce Miller, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada br...@brmiller.ca; (613) 745-1151 In the beginning... was the command line. -- *From:* Danny Piccirillo danny.picciri...@ubuntu.com *To:* ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com *Sent:* Wednesday, June 17, 2009 12:19:17 PM *Subject:* Stable 64-bit flash IIRC, the Flash 64 bit Alpha almost made it into Intrepid, but was not because it is an alpha. It w... -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Recent changes to ALSA for power saving
On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 11:18 PM, I wrote: We expect there will be regressions in the form of audible pops when the AMPs power down (and/or up). If you experience this symptom in On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 8:03 AM, Alexandre Strube su...@surak.eti.br wrote: Continually lowering the volume for, say, one second prior to disabling wouldn't mitigate this issue? That is a potential workaround, but the correct fix would be in linux's sound/pci/hda/*.c. Dan -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Recent changes to ALSA for power saving
Hi all, Luke and I have just pushed a one-line change to 9.10's /etc/modprobe.d/alsa-base.conf that enables HDA controllers to power down their amps after ten idle seconds. This change anticipates the larger power-savings objectives for 9.10. We expect there will be regressions in the form of audible pops when the AMPs power down (and/or up). If you experience this symptom in 9.10, please file a bug using ubuntu-bug alsa-base. Be sure to change the summary of the bug afterward to [9.10 regression] HDA power_save=10. Thanks, Dan -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: What's wrong with Ubuntu's policy?
On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 7:01 AM, Markus Hitter m...@jump-ing.de wrote: In my opinion, this is disappointing. Very disappointing. What is wrong with Ubuntu's release/fix/backport strategy for such a thing to happen? Downstreams should feel free to adopt whatever policies suit them. (Think Ubuntu's downstream relation to Debian, and Debian's downstream relation to all upstreams.) -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Current situation of amarok, and of latex tools
On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 2:07 PM, Vincenzo Ciancia cian...@di.unipi.it wrote: I hope this will not sound like a complaint. It does. The problem is there, and it's grave. Grave for whom? For you? For what common use cases? These are things that are factors to consider when affecting an entire release. In my opinion, the switch to recent versions of some programs has been done without the needed testing, (or, like in the case of the intel driver, without taking seriously the response from testers) and results in a completely broken or very badly usable system for many. In the latest release of ubuntu, I mean. There has been no lack of calls for testing. Some of these calls have resulted in timely and effective bug reports. Others, not so much. I doubt testers' responses have been blithely ignored. I know I certainly didn't regarding the audio stack (woe tho' it is). Some regressions are more serious than others, and like most bugs, there are sometimes quick workarounds. (Sometimes the entire audio stack has to be ripped apart, but that's irrelevant.) One pivot is how many users will regress if we do X instead of Y? It is not useful to base a decision solely on popular outcry. There are far too many hardware combinations. People whose Ubuntu installs seem to work rarely pipe up and complain. How do you account for them? THIS IS BAD FOR UBUNTU! THIS IS BAD FOR UBUNTU! THIS IS BAD FOR UBUNTU! THIS IS BAD FOR UBUNTU! THIS IS BAD FOR UBUNTU! THIS IS BAD It's a very thin line between complaining and fixing the bugs, but motivation may distort one's vision. I messed up my ph.d. thesis with it today, then in complete frustration reinstalled kile 2.0.1 from intrepid, which works like a charm. I understand your frustration. I, too, have a day job. Are you spending your free time fixing kile (and/or kdvi)? What is it doing there in a stable release? This program has not been tested. It is not stable. People does not like it yet. Are you seriously saying that Amarok has not been tested? Also, I'm unsure what part of liking (which is subjective, regardless) an application actually goes into bundling it into a release. As far as I know, Amarok has existed in some form for most, if not all, Kubuntu releases. To remove it would constitute a regression. To bundle an older version would result in complaints regarding an outdated version. etc. fixed, but why shipping a broken program in a stable distribution? Now this can't be my fault. Nor yours: you wanted to get rid of unsupported applications and that's good. But it was way too quick as a move. Next time a bit more testing will help. Or...you could step and take responsibility for some part of the distribution/release process. The line between complaining and fixing bugs really becomes thinner, then. The new intel driver was and is broken. Upgrading has been a grave mistake and users are seeing an ubuntu that deadlocks. Again, for which users on what hardware? Do those users constitute the majority of people using Ubuntu? It seems to me that too much trust was put in the fact that it'd have been fixed. How much of this complaining would be moot if you had contributed upstream? The ubuntu procedure for testing, in jaunty, seems not to have worked in some points. Next release can be better also from this point of view. Perhaps by just listening a bit more to regressions (it seems my favourite topic?). What constitutes a regression for you may not be a regression on someone else's install. Are you more important than that someone else? Whose install should break? Neither is an ideal but impractical answer. Dan -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Call for Jaunty testers (PulseAudio stability-related)
On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 5:28 AM, Dotan Cohen dotanco...@gmail.com wrote: I am an end-user with no development experience. Would my input in testing still be valuable? If so, then how can I start? Simply pointing me to the relevant documentation for enabling the kernel you mentioned would be a start. Start by installing the kernel for your given architecture. You can click the link for one of the debs, and Ubuntu will handle the rest for you, although I recommend that you save the deb instead of installing it immediately via gdebi. I recommend that you verify that the SHA256SUM is correct after downloading the deb. I have placed a GPG-signed SHA256SUM.asc file in that directory. Open a Terminal, and type: sha256sum filename where filename is the path to the linux-image...deb that you downloaded. Make sure the sums match. Once I get it up, what should I test? Should I just open different audio applications (Amarok, Skype, VLC) and try to play some files? Yes, please attempt to reproduce bug 330814 and/or bug 344057 using whatever normal usage patterns. Please remember that I am only interested in PulseAudio *stability* changes, not whether PulseAudio is inaudible, etc. -Dan -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
