On 11/23/20 11:48 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Mon, 2020-11-23 at 18:20 +0100, Tomasz Torcz wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 22, 2020 at 06:01:18PM +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>> On 11/20/20 5:26 PM, Ben Cotton wrote:
>>> The pulseaudio package will be uninstalled and pipewire-pulse will be
>>> pipewire-pulse does not yet implement all the features of pulseaudio
>>> but it is expected that
>>> comparable functionality will be implemented later. Most notable
>>> features that are likely
>>> not going to be available for fedora 34
>> IMO, this alone disqualifies this plan.
>> Fedora should be a stable end-user distro and not a testing site for eager
>> devs to test their immature and incomplete works.
> I think Fedora should establish strong "no regressions" rule when
> replacing system software like this. PulseAudio has had 15 years of
> development, features and fixes. It is hard to believe pipewire is as
> capable as a replacement now.
I disagree. This would be incompatible with the "First" foundation.
If we'd had a "no regressions" rule for pre-PA audio, we'd probably
never have landed PA, or not for years. Are things on the whole better
since we did? I'd say yes.
Will our first release with pipewire probably have some bugs that
constitute regressions from the previous audio setup? Almost certainly.
Especially given the sheer amounts of stuff people do - see your config
below - I think we'd find it difficult to have a "no regressions" rule
and still be Fedora. Part of Fedora's job is to adopt new things and
shake some of the initial bugs out of them.
> Of course we would need to start with collecting the use cases, and
> this will be different for every user. For example, I frequently use my
> laptop with 3 sound devices present: built-in speakers, speakers
> connected to USB-C dock and bluetooth headphones*. I use pavucontrol to
> route applications to proper output/input and I expect this to work the
> same with PW. This is important to me.
Did that all work with the first Fedora with PA in it? I bet not. Would
we have as capable a PA today if Fedora hadn't taken the leap to
include PA? Probably not.
PulseAudio wasn't necessarily purporting to be a drop-in replacement for
Alsa. It seems like if PipeWire really is going to be swappable like the
change text notes, we should be looking at this as a rare opportunity
to get really widespread testing with a potentially majorly breaking
change by offering the ability to easily swap it in and test in already
released versions. That way we could be "first" and "battle hardened"
the same time.
Unfortunately, as noted elsewhere in this thread, there really isn't a
way to test outside of Rawhide currently. It seems like the
packages are there and should work, but might not?
As I've mentioned elsewhere, I'm not saying handling changes like this
should be mandated, or even required in this specific case, or
elsewhere. But I think there would be less pushback to the change if
this was the course of action.
 - "This proposal is to replace the PulseAudio daemon with a
functionally compatible implementation based on PipeWire. This means
that all existing clients using the PulseAudio client library will
continue to work as before, as well as applications shipped as Flatpak."