Hi: On 22 June 2012 08:08:04 Brendan Jones wrote: > On 06/22/2012 06:42 AM, Christopher Antila wrote: > > On 06/21/2012 01:22 PM, Ian Malone wrote: > >> On 21 June 2012 17:22, Brendan Jones <brendan.jones.it@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>> Hi all, > >>> > >>> pulseaudio is not the one man team it was of the past. Upstream seems > >>> to be cracking on at a grand pace. While they are debating the release > >>> date of pulseaudio 3.0, one of the Fedora maintainers has been kind > >>> enough to put together a pulseaudio 2.0 repo [1] for those of us who > >>> shudder to think of using rawhide on a daily basis... > >>> > >>> Please let the list know your experiences. What we learn here is of > >>> supreme importance wrt. the audio spin. > >> > >> Well, I can play, what do we expect from it? Are there any user > >> visible changes or is it all under the hood? Any changes to Jack > >> integration (apart from unintentional havok)? > > > > http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/PulseAudio/Notes/2.0 > > > > Looks like there are some useful changes. Also looks like Fedora has > > been very slow at updating PulseAudio. > > Somewhat - development seems to be really fast at the moment (they also > have a GSOC student working on bluetooth stuff, which always helps to > move things along). Usually pulseaudio won't get a major bump within > releases but I'm sure the maintainers are willing listen if something in > a later release solves an issue and patch the current version. > > pulseaudio is a massively ambitious project from the start, but I do > think its the way to go. Managing it from a pro-audio perspective is > always going to create some work. The nature of Fedora was/is always > going to create issues (pretty sure ubuntu released at the same time > though). In any case its what all the desktop teams use as default, so > we have to live with it (and hopefully make it better). I think it does > a good job, but I also like/need to turn it off on occasion - this is > more our domain. > > I'm interested to hear if the backport gets better results for some of > us (myself, I haven't updated my test box here but will over the > weekend). I'd also like to take a more active role in squishing bugs, > but its really hard (most pulse bugs relate to hardware/alsa and hard to > replicate). I'd love some extra hands here [1]. If the spin does take > off I guess we are also somewhat implicated in looking after this as > well. I know there are a few of us here who know this stuff better than > I do so I'm hoping they share! > > [1] > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/buglist.cgi?product=Fedora&component=pulseaudio > &bug_status=NEW&bug_status=ASSIGNED&bug_status=NEEDINFO&bug_status=MODIFIED > &bug_status=ON_DEV&bug_status=FAILS_QA&bug_status=POST&list_id=161356 That's kind of my point. If you look at those bugs, most of them are filed against very old versions of PulseAudio. Even the most recent aren't for very recent versions. Considering we're Fedora, I would have expected PulseAudio 1.x to make it into Fedora 16 and PulseAudio 2.x to make it into Fedora 17. Perhaps Lennart is wary of endless, substance-free complaints. That's not to say all PulseAudio bugs and complaints are useless, but people get so charged up about it, you'd think it's a text editor or something. Speaking of which, Kate. Christopher.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ music mailing list music@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/music
