Re: PA 1.0 for FC16?
On Sat, 08.10.11 18:08, Gilboa Davara (gilb...@gmail.com) wrote: I might be completely off target on this one, but assuming that the information I've gathered thus far is correct, read: assuming that wine *requires* PA 1.0 to work reliably, will it possible to push PA 1.0 as a post installation upgrade or alternatively, using a personal repo? PA 1.0 is a feature upgrade and not limited to bugfixes. I am not going to push it in that late in the process, and not after the release either. I firmly believe in that released distribution should not get feature uprgades, only bugfixes. And I am definitely not going to change this opinion now. Lennart -- Lennart Poettering - Red Hat, Inc. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: PA 1.0 for FC16?
On Sat, Oct 8, 2011 at 10:36 PM, Peter Robinson pbrobin...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Oct 8, 2011 at 2:43 PM, Gilboa Davara gilb...@gmail.com wrote: Hello all, Short question: PA 1.0 was released ~1 month ago. According to the wine developers, the updated mmdevapi layer (the wine layer that emulates the Windows sound system) more-or-less requires current PA (1.0?) to work reliably. [1] For now, sound is completely broken under wine on any of my workstations [2]. Any chance of having it land in F16 or is it rawhide only for now? P.S. As far as I can gather, Ubuntu 11.10 will most likely ship w/ PA 1.0. Since when has that ever been part of the a decision making process for what Fedora does? Peter It was *not* an attempt to trash Fedora release policy. It *was* an attempt to point out that that most likely wine developers will view PA 1.0 as standard when targeting their development. - Gilboa -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: PA 1.0 for FC16?
On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 6:39 PM, Lennart Poettering mzerq...@0pointer.de wrote: On Sat, 08.10.11 18:08, Gilboa Davara (gilb...@gmail.com) wrote: I might be completely off target on this one, but assuming that the information I've gathered thus far is correct, read: assuming that wine *requires* PA 1.0 to work reliably, will it possible to push PA 1.0 as a post installation upgrade or alternatively, using a personal repo? PA 1.0 is a feature upgrade and not limited to bugfixes. I am not going to push it in that late in the process, and not after the release either. I firmly believe in that released distribution should not get feature uprgades, only bugfixes. And I am definitely not going to change this opinion now. Lennart OK. thanks. - Gilboa -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: PA 1.0 for FC16?
On Sat, 08.10.11 15:43, Gilboa Davara (gilb...@gmail.com) wrote: Hello all, Short question: PA 1.0 was released ~1 month ago. It was released 12 days ago. According to the wine developers, the updated mmdevapi layer (the wine layer that emulates the Windows sound system) more-or-less requires current PA (1.0?) to work reliably. [1] For now, sound is completely broken under wine on any of my workstations [2]. Any chance of having it land in F16 or is it rawhide only for now? I plan to update PA in F17 only. Lennart -- Lennart Poettering - Red Hat, Inc. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: PA 1.0 for FC16?
On Sat, Oct 8, 2011 at 3:48 PM, Lennart Poettering mzerq...@0pointer.de wrote: On Sat, 08.10.11 15:43, Gilboa Davara (gilb...@gmail.com) wrote: Hello all, Short question: PA 1.0 was released ~1 month ago. It was released 12 days ago. My mistake. According to the wine developers, the updated mmdevapi layer (the wine layer that emulates the Windows sound system) more-or-less requires current PA (1.0?) to work reliably. [1] For now, sound is completely broken under wine on any of my workstations [2]. Any chance of having it land in F16 or is it rawhide only for now? I plan to update PA in F17 only. I might be completely off target on this one, but assuming that the information I've gathered thus far is correct, read: assuming that wine *requires* PA 1.0 to work reliably, will it possible to push PA 1.0 as a post installation upgrade or alternatively, using a personal repo? - Gilboa -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: PA 1.0 for FC16?
I might be completely off target on this one, but assuming that the information I've gathered thus far is correct, read: assuming that wine *requires* PA 1.0 to work reliably, will it possible to push PA 1.0 as a post installation upgrade or alternatively, using a personal repo? I can offer to update, http://repos.fedorapeople.org/repos/rdieter/pulseaudio-backport/ to pa-1.0 (once it hits rawhide) for f16 at least. -- rex -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: PA 1.0 for FC16?
It might be better to make a case to bend the rules for PulseAudio and have it included in Fedora 16. It could be problematic if more programs have issues like wine where they won't work with pre-1.0 PulseAudio properly or reliably. On Sat, Oct 8, 2011 at 12:04 PM, Rex Dieter rdie...@math.unl.edu wrote: I might be completely off target on this one, but assuming that the information I've gathered thus far is correct, read: assuming that wine *requires* PA 1.0 to work reliably, will it possible to push PA 1.0 as a post installation upgrade or alternatively, using a personal repo? I can offer to update, http://repos.fedorapeople.org/repos/rdieter/pulseaudio-backport/ to pa-1.0 (once it hits rawhide) for f16 at least. -- rex -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: PA 1.0 for FC16?
On Sat, Oct 08, 2011 at 12:23:04PM -0500, Conan Kudo (ニール・ゴンパ) wrote: It might be better to make a case to bend the rules for PulseAudio and have it included in Fedora 16. It could be problematic if more programs have issues like wine where they won't work with pre-1.0 PulseAudio properly or reliably. I think it's too late for F16 to do such drastic changes. We are way after freeze. PA is a core component and should be tested thorugfully before including in release. Ubuntu shipped 0.99 snapshots for some time and had enough tests apparently. -- Tomasz TorczThere exists no separation between gods and men: xmpp: zdzich...@chrome.pl one blends softly casual into the other. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: PA 1.0 for FC16?
On Sat, Oct 8, 2011 at 7:04 PM, Rex Dieter rdie...@math.unl.edu wrote: I might be completely off target on this one, but assuming that the information I've gathered thus far is correct, read: assuming that wine *requires* PA 1.0 to work reliably, will it possible to push PA 1.0 as a post installation upgrade or alternatively, using a personal repo? I can offer to update, http://repos.fedorapeople.org/repos/rdieter/pulseaudio-backport/ to pa-1.0 (once it hits rawhide) for f16 at least. -- rex Rex, Please do. As always, you're the man :) - Gilboa -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: PA 1.0 for FC16?
Am 08.10.2011 19:34, schrieb Tomasz Torcz: On Sat, Oct 08, 2011 at 12:23:04PM -0500, Conan Kudo (ニール・ゴンパ) wrote: It might be better to make a case to bend the rules for PulseAudio and have it included in Fedora 16. It could be problematic if more programs have issues like wine where they won't work with pre-1.0 PulseAudio properly or reliably. I think it's too late for F16 to do such drastic changes. We are way after freeze. PA is a core component and should be tested thorugfully before including in releasee. Ubuntu shipped 0.99 snapshots for some time and had enough tests apparently. and so we better release AGAIN known broken things in the fear to POSSIBLE break anyhting? this is the same as happened with F15/MySQL without systemd unit and the guidlines forbid convert this after the release the same: to be carful not break things is not very smart if there are things broken i would fix with a change and ingore them because fear or call it like you want signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: PA 1.0 for FC16?
Tomasz Torcz wrote: I think it's too late for F16 to do such drastic changes. We are way after freeze. PA is a core component and should be tested thorugfully before including in release. Ubuntu shipped 0.99 snapshots for some time and had enough tests apparently. If Ubuntu is doing a better job than us of shipping an updated version of OUR OWN FEATURE, we're failing very badly. What happened to First in the 4 'F's? Our objectives are NOT to deliver current software only 6+ months after the competition. Kevin Kofler -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: PA 1.0 for FC16?
On 10/08/2011 01:15 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote: If Ubuntu is doing a better job than us of shipping an updated version of OUR OWN FEATURE, we're failing very badly. What happened to First in the 4 'F's? Our objectives are NOT to deliver current software only 6+ months after the competition. Create a FESCO ticket and get it brought up in a meeting. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: PA 1.0 for FC16?
How would someone go about doing that, anyway? On Sat, Oct 8, 2011 at 2:14 PM, Michael Cronenworth m...@cchtml.com wrote: On 10/08/2011 01:15 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote: If Ubuntu is doing a better job than us of shipping an updated version of OUR OWN FEATURE, we're failing very badly. What happened to First in the 4 'F's? Our objectives are NOT to deliver current software only 6+ months after the competition. Create a FESCO ticket and get it brought up in a meeting. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: PA 1.0 for FC16?
2011/10/8 Conan Kudo (ニール・ゴンパ) ngomp...@gmail.com: How would someone go about doing that, anyway? https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: PA 1.0 for FC16?
On Sat, 08 Oct 2011 14:14:50 -0500 Michael Cronenworth m...@cchtml.com wrote: On 10/08/2011 01:15 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote: If Ubuntu is doing a better job than us of shipping an updated version of OUR OWN FEATURE, we're failing very badly. What happened to First in the 4 'F's? Our objectives are NOT to deliver current software only 6+ months after the competition. Create a FESCO ticket and get it brought up in a meeting. I'd personally like to see more discussion/convincing of the maintainers before asking FESCo. On the pro side we have: - Wine needs it. On the con side we have: - Lots of changes? (I have no idea). - High chance for regression? or is this mostly just bugfixes? Perhaps maintainer(s) could explain why they are reluctant to push this into f16 with more specificity? kevin signature.asc Description: PGP signature -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: PA 1.0 for FC16?
There were a lot of changes[1], but the only program I know of that would absolutely break from those changes is padevchooser, which has long since been recommended and not usable, since avahi takes care of that quite nicely. [1]: http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/PulseAudio/Notes/1.0 On Sat, Oct 8, 2011 at 2:40 PM, Kevin Fenzi ke...@scrye.com wrote: On Sat, 08 Oct 2011 14:14:50 -0500 Michael Cronenworth m...@cchtml.com wrote: On 10/08/2011 01:15 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote: If Ubuntu is doing a better job than us of shipping an updated version of OUR OWN FEATURE, we're failing very badly. What happened to First in the 4 'F's? Our objectives are NOT to deliver current software only 6+ months after the competition. Create a FESCO ticket and get it brought up in a meeting. I'd personally like to see more discussion/convincing of the maintainers before asking FESCo. On the pro side we have: - Wine needs it. On the con side we have: - Lots of changes? (I have no idea). - High chance for regression? or is this mostly just bugfixes? Perhaps maintainer(s) could explain why they are reluctant to push this into f16 with more specificity? kevin -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: PA 1.0 for FC16?
Eerm, I mean recommended as not usable. Using padevchooser breaks most PulseAudio environments even now, so don't use it. 2011/10/8 Conan Kudo (ニール・ゴンパ) ngomp...@gmail.com There were a lot of changes[1], but the only program I know of that would absolutely break from those changes is padevchooser, which has long since been recommended and not usable, since avahi takes care of that quite nicely. [1]: http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/PulseAudio/Notes/1.0 On Sat, Oct 8, 2011 at 2:40 PM, Kevin Fenzi ke...@scrye.com wrote: On Sat, 08 Oct 2011 14:14:50 -0500 Michael Cronenworth m...@cchtml.com wrote: On 10/08/2011 01:15 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote: If Ubuntu is doing a better job than us of shipping an updated version of OUR OWN FEATURE, we're failing very badly. What happened to First in the 4 'F's? Our objectives are NOT to deliver current software only 6+ months after the competition. Create a FESCO ticket and get it brought up in a meeting. I'd personally like to see more discussion/convincing of the maintainers before asking FESCo. On the pro side we have: - Wine needs it. On the con side we have: - Lots of changes? (I have no idea). - High chance for regression? or is this mostly just bugfixes? Perhaps maintainer(s) could explain why they are reluctant to push this into f16 with more specificity? kevin -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: PA 1.0 for FC16?
Am 08.10.2011 21:40, schrieb Kevin Fenzi: On Sat, 08 Oct 2011 14:14:50 -0500 Michael Cronenworth m...@cchtml.com wrote: On 10/08/2011 01:15 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote: If Ubuntu is doing a better job than us of shipping an updated version of OUR OWN FEATURE, we're failing very badly. What happened to First in the 4 'F's? Our objectives are NOT to deliver current software only 6+ months after the competition. Create a FESCO ticket and get it brought up in a meeting. I'd personally like to see more discussion/convincing of the maintainers before asking FESCo. On the pro side we have: - Wine needs it. On the con side we have: - Lots of changes? (I have no idea). - High chance for regression? or is this mostly just bugfixes? all articles i read in the past said for the developers the 1.0 is only a number - on the other side Lennart will push it only to F17 - why? http://www.pro-linux.de/news/1/17548/pulseaudio-erreicht-version-10.html Die Entwickler selbst sprechen allerdings nur von einer Zahl, die keinerlei Bedeutung habe. Als Grund für die Freigabe der Version 1.0 nennen sie zum einen den breiten Einsatz des Systems und zum anderen den Willen, die Versionierung vereinfachen zu wollen signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: PA 1.0 for FC16?
On Sat, Oct 8, 2011 at 8:40 PM, Kevin Fenzi ke...@scrye.com wrote: On Sat, 08 Oct 2011 14:14:50 -0500 Michael Cronenworth m...@cchtml.com wrote: On 10/08/2011 01:15 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote: If Ubuntu is doing a better job than us of shipping an updated version of OUR OWN FEATURE, we're failing very badly. What happened to First in the 4 'F's? Our objectives are NOT to deliver current software only 6+ months after the competition. Create a FESCO ticket and get it brought up in a meeting. I'd personally like to see more discussion/convincing of the maintainers before asking FESCo. On the pro side we have: - Wine needs it. On the con side we have: - Lots of changes? (I have no idea). - High chance for regression? or is this mostly just bugfixes? Perhaps maintainer(s) could explain why they are reluctant to push this into f16 with more specificity? Well we're suppose to be stabilising, its not in rawhide yet so any form of impact can even be assessed and personally I would trust the maintainer as he's also one of the upstream maintainers. Also reading the reference bugs about wine I'd like to point out the following: 1) Wine audio is broken since F-15 as per bug # 28622 so this is not a regression 2) To quote bug # 10495 - Yes, PulseAudio is supported through its ALSA compatibility plugin. It's possible that a PulseAudio driver might happen at some point, but there's no plans for one at the moment. 3) I don't believe from reading the bugs that the wine problem will be fixed by adding PA 1.0 but there might be a patch that could be added to either PA or wine to fix or at least improve the problem. Peter -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: PA 1.0 for FC16?
On Sat, Oct 8, 2011 at 2:43 PM, Gilboa Davara gilb...@gmail.com wrote: Hello all, Short question: PA 1.0 was released ~1 month ago. According to the wine developers, the updated mmdevapi layer (the wine layer that emulates the Windows sound system) more-or-less requires current PA (1.0?) to work reliably. [1] For now, sound is completely broken under wine on any of my workstations [2]. Any chance of having it land in F16 or is it rawhide only for now? P.S. As far as I can gather, Ubuntu 11.10 will most likely ship w/ PA 1.0. Since when has that ever been part of the a decision making process for what Fedora does? Peter -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: PA 1.0 for FC16?
Am 08.10.2011 22:36, schrieb Peter Robinson: On Sat, Oct 8, 2011 at 2:43 PM, Gilboa Davara gilb...@gmail.com wrote: Hello all, Short question: PA 1.0 was released ~1 month ago. According to the wine developers, the updated mmdevapi layer (the wine layer that emulates the Windows sound system) more-or-less requires current PA (1.0?) to work reliably. [1] For now, sound is completely broken under wine on any of my workstations [2]. Any chance of having it land in F16 or is it rawhide only for now? P.S. As far as I can gather, Ubuntu 11.10 will most likely ship w/ PA 1.0. Since when has that ever been part of the a decision making process for what Fedora does? well, but why nobody is interested in getting new things stable before they are released (pulseaudio is a good example in the state it was released the first time with fedora some time ago) but after they are introduced we are rely on existing problems/bugs and take a deep breath instead going forward to improve the tings and update already released components if there would be much more care by introducing new features/replacements my understanding for the fear of update thmen after that would be much higher as long fedora is shooting out new features without any care if they are really ready fdora should also update them - systemd as best example and no - this is not flaming - this is simply the wish if i get new software which is not really ready but seems good anough for a GA-release i expect updates of this software are more than good enough to be push ASAP signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: PA 1.0 for FC16?
On 10/08/2011 04:44 PM, Reindl Harald wrote: if there would be much more care by introducing new features/replacements my understanding for the fear of update thmen after that would be much higher as long fedora is shooting out new features without any care if they are really ready fdora should also update them - systemd as best example and no - this is not flaming - this is simply the wish if i get new software which is not really ready but seems good anough for a GA-release i expect updates of this software are more than good enough to be push ASAP This argument makes some sense (if a bit overblown) - we do seem more concerned about not updating than not releasing in the first place - e.g. while its true we delayed systemd - the general noise level suggests it was still not solid enough ... once its released 'core' components get less love coz making changes is bad ... This seems a bit odd ... we're cutting edge - but if the cut smells then its too bad ... I still strongly advocate for a rolling release - where single large core changes can be serialized if need be into the testing repo for as long as it takes to stabilize them (or pulled back out as a unit) - and smaller improvements and bug fixes can continue unimpeded ... now we could be truly leading edge. gene/ -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: PA 1.0 for FC16?
On Sat, Oct 8, 2011 at 4:26 PM, Genes MailLists li...@sapience.com wrote: On 10/08/2011 04:44 PM, Reindl Harald wrote: if there would be much more care by introducing new features/replacements my understanding for the fear of update thmen after that would be much higher as long fedora is shooting out new features without any care if they are really ready fdora should also update them - systemd as best example and no - this is not flaming - this is simply the wish if i get new software which is not really ready but seems good anough for a GA-release i expect updates of this software are more than good enough to be push ASAP This argument makes some sense (if a bit overblown) - we do seem more concerned about not updating than not releasing in the first place - e.g. while its true we delayed systemd - the general noise level suggests it was still not solid enough ... once its released 'core' components get less love coz making changes is bad ... This seems a bit odd ... we're cutting edge - but if the cut smells then its too bad ... I still strongly advocate for a rolling release - where single large core changes can be serialized if need be into the testing repo for as long as it takes to stabilize them (or pulled back out as a unit) - and smaller improvements and bug fixes can continue unimpeded ... now we could be truly leading edge. gene/ -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel A few years ago, I would have probably been against a rolling release system for Fedora. But with the improved infrastructure over the last year or so, I would actually like to see Fedora transition to such a system. The only disappointing thing is that there'll be no more release parties... :( -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
