<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p>Hi Dylan,<br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 12/03/2024 4:16 am, Dylan Aïssi
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CA+6XHwQwf+YC57osz+bBsyAXaUjQL2yjy1T73qNLMnOLFDpbww@mail.gmail.com">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">Hello Arnaud,
Le jeu. 7 mars 2024 à 04:44, Arnaud Rebillout <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:arnaudr@debian.org"><arnaudr@debian.org></a> a écrit :
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">
- <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://salsa.debian.org/arnaudr/pipewire-module-xrdp">https://salsa.debian.org/arnaudr/pipewire-module-xrdp</a>
- <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1037111">https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1037111</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">
You are right, it's the first pipewire module outside the main package.
So, let's try to clear the way:
What about using "libpipewire-0.3-module-xrdp" for binary package
name? It makes it consistent with other modules packages we have
(libpipewire-0.3-modules and libpipewire-0.3-modules-x11 ) and
this shows that it's a libpipewire-0.3 plugin. Moreover, this name
scheme is close to the one use for gstreamer plugin
(i.e. gstreamer1.0-blabla).</pre>
</blockquote>
<p>Ack, sounds good to me.</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CA+6XHwQwf+YC57osz+bBsyAXaUjQL2yjy1T73qNLMnOLFDpbww@mail.gmail.com">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">In the build log, dpkg-shlibdeps warns about unresolvable references
to symbols from libpipewire-0.3, maybe only a false positives since
it is a plugin but worth investigating.</pre>
</blockquote>
<p>I don't know if it's false positive or not (I'm really not
familiar with dynamic linking).</p>
<p>When I look at the x11 module:</p>
<p>$ apt show libpipewire-0.3-modules-x11 | grep ^Depends:<br>
Depends: libc6 (>= 2.4), libcanberra0t64 (>= 0.2),
libpipewire-0.3-0 (= 1.0.3-1.1), libx11-6 (>= 2:1.7.0),
libxfixes3 (>= 1:6.0.0), libcanberra-pulse<br>
</p>
<p>When I look at the xrdp module:</p>
<p>$ dpkg-deb --info libpipewire-0.3-module-xrdp_0.1-2_amd64.deb |
grep Depends:<br>
Depends: libc6 (>= 2.17), pipewire-bin<br>
</p>
<p>I wonder why there's no dependency on libpipewire-0.3.0, and if
it's something that needs to be fixed or not. I also guess that if
there was such a dependency, there would be no dpkg-shlibdeps
warning?<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CA+6XHwQwf+YC57osz+bBsyAXaUjQL2yjy1T73qNLMnOLFDpbww@mail.gmail.com">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">I would add a dependency on "pipewire" to be sure its services
are installed. I don't know if this module is useful without a session
manager otherwise you would also need to add wireplumber as
dependency.</pre>
</blockquote>
<p>I spend some time thinking about this. I think that I should
actually split in two binary packages:</p>
- libpipewire-0.3-module-xrdp would _only_ install the .so. That's
in line with libpipewire-0.3-modules and
libpipewire-0.3-modules-x11, and it's probably simple to come up
with the right dependencies.<br>
- pipewire-xrdp (name taken after the name of the xdg/autostart
script) would install the integration bits, ie.
/etc/xdg/autostart/pipewire-xrdp.desktop and
/usr/libexec/pipewire-module-xrdp/load_pw_modules.sh.<br>
<p>With this split, it gives some rope for users. If needed they can
install the module only, and then come up with another integration
(maybe they don't want to use a xdg/autostart script for example).<br>
</p>
<p>I also think that, for the principle of least surprise, going
forward it's nice if users know that packages named
libpipewire-*-modules-* only install modules, as the name suggest,
and don't install anything else.</p>
<p>But maybe I'm over thinking... What do you think? </p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CA+6XHwQwf+YC57osz+bBsyAXaUjQL2yjy1T73qNLMnOLFDpbww@mail.gmail.com">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">Some comments about the upstream load_pw_modules.sh
it refers to the Debian wiki which is nice :-) but not sure this is the
best reference for pipewire. For example, it uses configuration
that doesn't exist, I was asked by upstream to update our wiki about
that :-)
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://wiki.debian.org/PipeWire?action=diff&rev2=49&rev1=48">https://wiki.debian.org/PipeWire?action=diff&rev2=49&rev1=48</a>
It is an upstream bug, but I guess they need to refresh their
load_pw_modules.sh.
These are just a few suggestions after a quick review.</pre>
</blockquote>
<p>Ack, thanks for the review, I will open a bug upstream.<br>
</p>
<p><span style="white-space: pre-wrap">
</span></p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CA+6XHwQwf+YC57osz+bBsyAXaUjQL2yjy1T73qNLMnOLFDpbww@mail.gmail.com">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">I CCed Dylan, as I'm not sure that the address
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:pkg-utopia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org">pkg-utopia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org</a> reaches anyone out there.
Please tell me if there's another point of contact for the Utopia team.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">
Some discussions happen here, so it's fine.</pre>
</blockquote>
<p>I actually just found out about that mailing list archives on
alioth.debian.net, I didn't even know it existed :D<br>
</p>
<p><span style="white-space: pre-wrap">
</span></p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CA+6XHwQwf+YC57osz+bBsyAXaUjQL2yjy1T73qNLMnOLFDpbww@mail.gmail.com"><br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">Additionally, I'd be happy to move this repo under the utopia-team Salsa
group for maintenance going forward.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">
I don't have enough permissions to add you to the group, I guess we will
need help from someone else.</pre>
</blockquote>
<p>Ok, no rush, let's finish the packaging first.</p>
<p>Best,</p>
<p>Arnaud<br>
</p>
</body>
</html>