The last two upgrades have broken my audio setup.

First the options for Network Server and Network Access in paprefs were greyed out and my sinks disappeared after upgrading to bookworm. I just had to create a link to an existing file and it was working again but, it’s weird that it was needed in the first place. Pretty sure it has something to do with the change from pulseaudio to pipewire but I’m not very up to date on that subject and I just want to have my current setup to continue working.

Then yesterday I just launch a simple apt-get upgrade and after rebooting my sinks disappeared again. The network options in paprefs were still available, but changing them did nothing. I had to create the file ~/.config/pipewire/pipewire-pulse.conf.d/10-gsettings.conf and stuff it with “pulse.cmd = [ { cmd = “load-module” args = “module-gsettings” flags = [ “nofail” ] } ]” in order to have my sinks back.

I know it’s not only a Debian thing, as I can see this happening to people on Arch forums, but as Debian is supposed to be the “stable” one, I find it amusing that a simple upgrade can break your sound.

  • @bisbyEnglish
    11•6 months ago

    IMO it doesn’t matter. People don’t read news on updates. Should they? Yes. Do they? No. Should they have to? Also no.

    Linus’s point is to never blame the end user for something the kernel changed. If you want software to have widespread adoption, adding homework to simple updates isn’t how you do it. People don’t want a hobby or something to babysit, they want an operating system. Debian will go out of their way to make in-release updates go as smooth as possible, but are willing to through out entire parts of functioning packages between releases.

    But this isn’t even about breaking things for the end user. This will create excessive amounts of noise on the upstream repo. People will say “Hey! My keepassxc broke!” and they report it to keepassxc, and not to Debian. To which keepassxc just has to constantly reply “no, debian changed this on you, this is not a bug.” If Debian had to deal with the fall out of their own decisions, I would say “yeah, im not sure if i agree with the decision, but oh well”… But they are increasing the workload for other teams.

    It is already happening. The debian dev’s stance is “This will be painful for a year.” But it will be painful for keepassxc, NOT debian. The keepassxc devs asked them to not do this. Debian’s response might as well be “Im inflicting this pain on you, even though you’ve asked me not to. But on the plus side, it won’t hurt me at all and it will only last a year for you.” If they really have that much disdain for the project, they should just stop packaging it altogether.

    So yeah, debian has the legal right to do whatever they want because keepassxc is open source. but “just because I can, and you cant legally stop me, and its extra work for you, not me” is kind of a jerk move. This is what drives FOSS contributors to get burnt out and abandon otherwise good projects.

    • JackbyDevEnglish
      4•6 months ago

      I think what pisses me off about this is that I have zero idea what this NEWS file is or where to read it.

      It’s disgusting to see the Debian dev just flagrantly ignore this. Did they even warn the KeePsssXC devs they were doing this?

      • @[email protected]
        2•5 months ago

        Quote from one of the KeePass developers in the GitHub discussion.

        @Dio9sys no, this was not communicated to us before hand, nor was there a chance to collaborate on an effective solution for both parties. There also seems to be “no going back” per Julian above. So this one way door decision is the new reality I guess. All I can say is, use Flatpak and get away from distro lock in altogether."