<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div class="moz-text-flowed" style="font-family: -moz-fixed;
font-size: 12px;" lang="x-unicode">
<br>
On 1/25/23 16:12, Simon McVittie wrote:
<br>
<blockquote type="cite" style="color: #007cff;">On Wed, 25 Jan
2023 at 15:10:52 -0500, Rann Bar-On wrote:
<br>
<blockquote type="cite" style="color: #007cff;">gnome-core 43+1
depends on pipewire-audio, which conflicts with
<br>
pulseaudio, making gnome-core uninstallable with pulseaudio.
<br>
</blockquote>
It is intentional that the default audio setup for GNOME is
Pipewire, and
<br>
it is intentional that users upgrading from Debian 11 to 12
should usually
<br>
get PulseAudio replaced by Pipewire during that upgrade (see
#1020249).
<br>
</blockquote>
Ah! I was not aware of this.
<br>
<blockquote type="cite" style="color: #007cff;">It continues to be
possible to run GNOME without installing gnome-core,
<br>
by installing gnome-session (which is the minimal GNOME session)
and
<br>
whatever applications you want to run: for example, you could
install
<br>
all of the dependencies of gnome-core except for pipewire-audio
if that's
<br>
what you want, and that would be a valid way to configure a
system.
<br>
<br>
I don't know whether it's intentional that it is no longer
possible to
<br>
install gnome-core and pulseaudio together.
<br>
<br>
Pipewire maintainers: do you have an opinion on whether
gnome-core should
<br>
return to depending on the individual dependencies of
pipewire-audio,
<br>
rather than on the metapackage?
<br>
<br>
I'm not sure that I understand why pipewire-alsa and
pipewire-audio need
<br>
to conflict with pulseaudio. Would it be sufficient to rename
<br>
/etc/alsa/conf.d/99-pipewire-default.conf to sort later than
99-pulse.conf,
<br>
or ask the pulseaudio maintainers to rename
/etc/alsa/conf.d/99-pulse.conf
<br>
to sort slightly earlier? That would restore the older behaviour
in which
<br>
installing both pulseaudio and the equivalent of pipewire-audio
is possible,
<br>
and Pipewire "wins"?
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite" style="color: #007cff;">I think this is
a probem!
<br>
</blockquote>
Please clarify why this is a problem?
<br>
</blockquote>
Given the above, my opinion has changed.
<br>
<blockquote type="cite" style="color: #007cff;">If there are
reasons why you need to continue to use pulseaudio instead
<br>
of pipewire-pulse's implementation of a PulseAudio-compatible
audio server,
<br>
please report them as bugs or feature requests in
pipewire-pulse.
<br>
<br>
Did you previously have pipewire-pulse installed? If yes, how
did you
<br>
arrange to avoid it taking precedence over pulseaudio?
<br>
<br>
(If the answer is that you were previously using pipewire-pulse
as your
<br>
audio service, you were no longer running pulseaudio, and you
hadn't
<br>
noticed any difference, then that is pipewire-pulse working as
intended!)
<br>
</blockquote>
This is exactly what happened! Nice job making me completely
oblivious to this change!
<br>
<blockquote type="cite" style="color: #007cff;">
<br>
I can see that requiring apt to figure out that it can remove
pulseaudio
<br>
during upgrades might be problematic, since apt is often
reluctant to
<br>
remove packages, and for that reason it might be better if we
could find
<br>
a solution where leaving pulseaudio installed and inactive is
possible.
<br>
</blockquote>
Maybe. I prefer cleaning up packages, so if something is inactive
by necessity, I think it should be removed.
<br>
<blockquote type="cite" style="color: #007cff;">
<br>
Thanks,
<br>
smcv
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<div class="moz-txt-sig"><span class="moz-txt-tag">-- <br>
</span>--
<br>
Rann Bar-On
<br>
he/him/his
<br>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>