[Pkg-utopia-maintainers] Bug#1029648: gnome-core 1:43+1 not installable with Pulseaudio

[Rann Bar-On]

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

-- 
-- 
Rann Bar-On
he/him/his
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://alioth-lists.debian.net/pipermail/pkg-utopia-maintainers/attachments/20230125/97baa4e0/attachment-0001.htm>