Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.debian.bugs.dist > #1117343 > unrolled thread

Bug#1019888: pipewire 0.3.57-1: no/crackling sound if pavucontrol is open, 0.3.56-1 is fine

Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.bugs.dist

Contents

  Bug#1019888: pipewire 0.3.57-1: no/crackling sound if pavucontrol is open, 0.3.56-1 is fine Clément Hermann <nodens@debian.org> - 2022-09-15 17:40 +0200
    Bug#1019888: pipewire 0.3.57-1: no/crackling sound if pavucontrol is open, 0.3.56-1 is fine Dylan Aïssi <daissi@debian.org> - 2022-09-15 18:30 +0200

#1117343 — Bug#1019888: pipewire 0.3.57-1: no/crackling sound if pavucontrol is open, 0.3.56-1 is fine

Package: pipewire
Version: 0.3.57-1

Tags: fixed-upstream

Dear pipewire maintainers,

I'm a happy user of pipewire since a few month, however since the
upgrade to 0.3.57, no node can output sound if pavucontrol is open.

When pavucontrol is open, pipewire log show the following error message

(3-4/second):
```
spa.alsa: hw:sofhdadsp: snd_pcm_avail after recover: Broken pipe
```

Starting pavucontrol after the node starts playing works a little
better: there is sound, but it's choppy.

Closing pavucontrol makes the sound working again.
Downgrading pipewire to the 0.3.56-1 version fixes it as well.

I believe this is an upstream regression: 
https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/pipewire/pipewire/-/issues/2671 (fixed in 
0.3.58 it seems, but I didn't test it).

Disclaimer: I have a fairly fine-tuned configuration for low audio
latency, for pro audio apps (recording, routing, etc). It might make
things worse in this case. So while I considered tagging this `Important`
I refrained from doing so, I might be in a corner case.

The Gnome sound parameter menu works fine (but you can't enable/disable
device profiles with it, hence my usage of pavucontrol even when I'm not
using recording apps).

Please, can we get 0.3.58 sooner rather than later?

I see there are a lot of changes in the work, and I understand you want 
to get them right,
as well as discuss them maybe, especially with the conversation going on 
currently about pipewire.

That said, can I suggest decorellate system changes and upgrading to 
latest upstream release first so this is fixed?

Thanks :)


PS: if anyone reading this needs to downgrade on **sid**, the easy way is

- adding the right snapshot in apt list from snapshots.d.o:
https://snapshot.debian.org/archive/debian/20220720T032429Z/
contrib non-free`

- and downgrade like this:

`export pwver=0.3.56-1; apt install 
{pipewire{,-alsa,-bin,-jack,-pulse},libspa-0.2-{modules,bluetooth,jack},libpipewire-0.3{-0,-modules},gstreamer1.0-pipewire}=$pwver`

do *not* do this on testing, at least not blindly, you'd need to get the 
right snapshot first ;)


-- System Information:
Debian Release: bookworm/sid
APT prefers unstable
APT policy: (500, 'unstable')
Architecture: amd64 (x86_64)

Kernel: Linux 5.18.0-4-amd64 (SMP w/8 CPU threads; PREEMPT)
Kernel taint flags: TAINT_OOT_MODULE, TAINT_UNSIGNED_MODULE
Locale: LANG=fr_FR.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=fr_FR.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8), LANGUAGE 
not set
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /usr/bin/dash
Init: systemd (via /run/systemd/system)
LSM: AppArmor: enabled

Versions of packages pipewire depends on:
ii init-system-helpers 1.64
ii libpipewire-0.3-modules 0.3.57-1
ii pipewire-bin 0.3.57-1

pipewire recommends no packages.

pipewire suggests no packages.

-- no debconf information

-- 
nodens

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1117347

Hi Clément,

Le jeu. 15 sept. 2022 à 17:33, Clément Hermann <nodens@debian.org> a écrit :
>
> I'm a happy user of pipewire since a few month.
>

Glad to see a happy user :-)

> I believe this is an upstream regression:
> https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/pipewire/pipewire/-/issues/2671 (fixed in
> 0.3.58 it seems, but I didn't test it).

Thanks for opening this bug with the solution!

> Disclaimer: I have a fairly fine-tuned configuration for low audio
> latency, for pro audio apps (recording, routing, etc). It might make
> things worse in this case. So while I considered tagging this `Important`
> I refrained from doing so, I might be in a corner case.

I am interesting in having more feedback from this kind of configuration!

>
> Please, can we get 0.3.58 sooner rather than later?

I plan to upload the new version tomorrow.

> That said, can I suggest decorellate system changes and upgrading to
> latest upstream release first so this is fixed?

That is a very good suggestion :-) next time I will make invasive
changes in a separate branch.

Best,
Dylan

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.bugs.dist

csiph-web