Considerations for 'xmms' removal from Debian

William Pitcock · External Since: Jul 11, 2007 Posts: 14

Josselin Mouette <joss <at> debian.org> writes:

>
> Whether you like it or not, audacious is a playlist-based audio player
> with support for many audio formats and funny plugins. This description
> sounds much like XMMS, which is why it can be considered a good
> replacement. As a user, I don't care about the architecture being
> different (apart from the bugs gone away).
>

The only thing I ask for is that you don't assert that Audacious is
a 100% identical "XMMS clone". Saying that Audacious is a suitable
replacement is fine, saying that we are an "XMMS clone" in any
official documentation will likely result in users harassing us.

Which we don't want. After all, would you if you were in our position?

Gentoo did this initially and we got hit with an onslaught of unhappy
migrants. My position is to make sure that does not happen again.

William

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST.RemoveThis@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster.RemoveThis@lists.debian.org

Don Armstrong · External Since: Jan 24, 2005 Posts: 236

On Sat, 14 Jul 2007, William Pitcock wrote:
> Because every time distros try to do an xmms->audacious migration on
> us, it causes additional load on our development effort because
> people file bug reports and demand that we behave exactly like XMMS.

Like it or not, bug reports are a part of software development that we
all have to deal with. Suggesting announcements or text for such a
transition may help, but at the end of the day distributions are going
to switch as projects mature or decay. Complaining about the
transition occuring isn't going to resolve your concern.

> I don't find the comparison offensive, I find the result of the
> comparison offensive, which is people dictating to us how our
> project will work.

Users shouldn't be able to dictate to you how the project works; they
don't do the development. In Debian's case, refer these users to our
bug tracking system (as all of our documentation refers users.)

Don Armstrong

--
"I'm a rational being--of a sort--rational enough, at least, to see the
symptoms of insanity around me. And I'm human, the same as the poeple
I think of as victims when my guard drops. It's at least possible I'm
even crazier than my fellows, whom I'm tempted to pity.
"There seems only one thing to do, and that's get drunk"
-- Chad C. Mulligan (John Brunner _Stand On Zanzibar p390)

http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST RemoveThis @lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster RemoveThis @lists.debian.org

William Pitcock · External Since: Jul 11, 2007 Posts: 14

Lionel Elie Mamane <lionel <at> mamane.lu> writes:

>
> Would a mention of the "different direction of audacious" in the
> release notes of lenny, the next Debian release, fulfil your "PR
> handling" request? Something like

Simply not asserting that Audacious is a fullstop "XMMS clone" will fulfill my
request.

>
> 4.5 XMMS removal
>
> Due to concerns over its high number of bugs, unmaintained status
> (and hence bugs will not get fixed), usage of old, unmaintained
> libraries (gtk+ 1.2) and no UTF-8 support, xmms has been removed from
> Debian. We suggest users of xmms try 'bmpx' and/or 'audacious' for
> media players that may feel familiar to them. You may also want to
> give xmms2 a shot: it is by the same upstream than xmms, albeit feels
> very different.
>

The developers of bmpx no longer have a player that is anything like
Audacious or XMMS. It uses GStreamer and looks more like Amarok than
XMMS. You should look at their Screenshots[1] before recommending it
as an XMMS replacement.

I'm not qualified to comment on XMMS2.

Sure, audacious is similar to XMMS, and claiming that is fine. Claiming
that we are an XMMS *clone* sends the wrong message to your user base
and causes problems in upstream with bugreports like:

(a) Feature X is broken in Audacious because it's not like XMMS.
(b) You don't _____________________. That's a regression from XMMS.
(c) Why doesn't Audacious have _________? XMMS does.

As long as we don't hear about 'regressions from XMMS' as a result of
a migration path provided by Debian, then you have fulfilled my request.

This is where Gentoo initially failed to succeed in their migration.

William

[1] http://beep-media-player.org/site/Screenshots

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST RemoveThis @lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster RemoveThis @lists.debian.org

William Pitcock · External Since: Jul 11, 2007 Posts: 14

Don Armstrong <don <at> debian.org> writes:

> Like it or not, bug reports are a part of software development that we
> all have to deal with. Suggesting announcements or text for such a
> transition may help, but at the end of the day distributions are going
> to switch as projects mature or decay. Complaining about the
> transition occuring isn't going to resolve your concern.

If you think I am complaining about debian transitioning from xmms to
audacious, I am not. I like bug reports /that have merit/. Simple
comparisons to XMMS do not provide such merit.

I am complaining about developer time being wasted by xmms zealots
which will likely harass us on our tracker.

> Users shouldn't be able to dictate to you how the project works; they
> don't do the development. In Debian's case, refer these users to our
> bug tracking system (as all of our documentation refers users.)

Then debian will resolve their complaints locally using patches, which
means we will likely have to adopt the position of not providing any
upstream support to debian. I would like to avoid that, but if debian
patches audacious to make it work like XMMS, then we would have no
choice but to reject bugs reported to us using the debian patched
binaries.

As an example, what Debian ships as 'xmms' is quite different than what
you normally get in the CVS of XMMS. I would like to see that not happen
to audacious.

William

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST.DeleteThis@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster.DeleteThis@lists.debian.org

William Pitcock · External Since: Jul 11, 2007 Posts: 14

Steve Langasek <vorlon <at> debian.org> writes:

>
> I wonder why audacious and audacious-plugins should be separate packages at
> all instead of building them into a single binary package, given that this
> circular dependency relationship exists (even if not on paper currently).
>

Because we (audacious) release the player and the plugins seperately. This allows
for faster QA procedures to happen during the development workflow, as we don't
have to freeze development of both the player and the plugins, we can just
concentrate on one or the other. For instance, the latest audacious player is
1.3.2, and the latest plugins pack is 1.3.5.

William

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST DeleteThis @lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster DeleteThis @lists.debian.org

William Pitcock · External Since: Jul 11, 2007 Posts: 14

Eduard Bloch <edi <at> gmx.de> writes:

>
> I see this in strace output with default configuration. Switching the
> setting between on-display and on-load makes it even worse, then it
> opens every file THREE times. Sorry, wtf?
>

This is a result of codec detection, and has been improved upon in
Audacious 1.3 (presently available in unstable?). XMMS does not perform
codec detection, but instead guesses on how to proceed. That behaviour
is broken in more than a few ways.

> Further, it has broken SIGTERM handling. Unless I am able to find such
> visible problems within minutes, this program is no replacement for the
> good old XMMS.
>

It handles SIGTERM gracefully. That's not broken. SIGTERM is not
supposed to immediately kill the app, it's supposed to allow the
app to shutdown gracefully, e.g. save the playlist, settings, et-cetera.

> I don't want to have it entirely deactivated, I want it to work then and
> only then when I need this information.
>

Hitting F5 on your keyboard will cause metadata to be loaded manually
if you have disabled automatic metadata loading.

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST.TakeThisOut@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster.TakeThisOut@lists.debian.org

Don Armstrong · External Since: Jan 24, 2005 Posts: 236

On Sat, 14 Jul 2007, William Pitcock wrote:
> I am complaining about developer time being wasted by xmms zealots
> which will likely harass us on our tracker.

There's little that can be done to educate or placate zealots; but
considering that everyone is talking about transitioning to audacious,
not advertising (heh; amusing that someone thinks we have PR) adacious
as an xmms clone.

> Then debian will resolve their complaints locally using patches,
> which means we will likely have to adopt the position of not
> providing any upstream support to debian. I would like to avoid
> that, but if debian patches audacious to make it work like XMMS,
> then we would have no choice but to reject bugs reported to us using
> the debian patched binaries.

The point isn't that the maintainers would blindly follow the user's
bug reports. The point is that the maintainers will filter out inane
and irrelevant bug reports before forwarding them upstream, reducing
the load on upstream developers due to whatever package descriptions
and transition plans that Debian implements.

In general, bug reports should be filed against the Debian package.
The Debian maintainer is more than capable of discerning whether the
bug is due to a custom modification present in Debian only, or whether
it exists upstream, and forwarding the bug appropriately.

> As an example, what Debian ships as 'xmms' is quite different than
> what you normally get in the CVS of XMMS. I would like to see that
> not happen to audacious.

That's really a matter of maintainers working closely with upstream
developers. Rather than this mailing list the person you should be
coordinating with and talking to is Adam CÃ©cile. [Hopefully you were
already aware that he is the audacious maintainer.]

Don Armstrong

--
Our days are precious, but we gladly see them going
If in their place we find a thing more precious growing
A rare, exotic plant, our gardener's heart delighting
A child whom we are teaching, a booklet we are writing
-- Frederick RÃ¼kert _Wisdom of the Brahmans_
[Hermann Hesse _Glass Bead Game_]

http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu

William Pitcock · External Since: Jul 11, 2007 Posts: 14

Don Armstrong <don <at> debian.org> writes:

>
> There's little that can be done to educate or placate zealots; but
> considering that everyone is talking about transitioning to audacious,
> not advertising (heh; amusing that someone thinks we have PR) adacious
> as an xmms clone.
>

I don't think debian has PR, however I think debian can choose how
to handle a migration in a way where it's not harmful to audacious as
upstream from debian.

> In general, bug reports should be filed against the Debian package.
> The Debian maintainer is more than capable of discerning whether the
> bug is due to a custom modification present in Debian only, or whether
> it exists upstream, and forwarding the bug appropriately.
>

So then you are saying we should reject all bugs against audacious as
provided by debian which do not refer to a debian bugtracker URL
anyway? I'll certainly be happy to implement that.

> That's really a matter of maintainers working closely with upstream
> developers. Rather than this mailing list the person you should be
> coordinating with and talking to is Adam Cécile. [Hopefully you were
> already aware that he is the audacious maintainer.]
>

Adam has commit access to our repository. I do indeed trust his
judgement, but if he decides to orphan the package, then we have a
problem. If he is put in a position where there are 11000 xmms users
left without a package taking their angst out on him, he may not feel
like maintaining the package anymore. That's human nature, you know.

William

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST.DeleteThis@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster.DeleteThis@lists.debian.org

Don Armstrong · External Since: Jan 24, 2005 Posts: 236

On Sun, 15 Jul 2007, William Pitcock wrote:
> I don't think debian has PR, however I think debian can choose how
> to handle a migration in a way where it's not harmful to audacious
> as upstream from debian.

We can certainly attempt to do so; I don't think anyone in this thread
is contemplanting knowingly causing audacious's upstream harm.

> So then you are saying we should reject all bugs against audacious
> as provided by debian which do not refer to a debian bugtracker URL
> anyway? I'll certainly be happy to implement that.

It's entirely your decision as to what you do with your bug reports,
but reporting bugs against the bts is what Debian users are encouraged
to do, especially when they aren't certain whether the bug is an
upstream problem or not.

> I do indeed trust his judgement, but if he decides to orphan the
> package, then we have a problem. If he is put in a position where
> there are 11000 xmms users left without a package taking their angst
> out on him, he may not feel like maintaining the package anymore.

Considering the fact that he would be involved in any transition, he's
perfectly capable of deciding and/or recommending veribiage with which
he is satisfied.

Don Armstrong

--
Debian's not really about the users or the software at all. It's a
large flame-generating engine that the cabal uses to heat their coffee
-- Andrew Suffield (#debian-devel Fri, 14 Feb 2003 14:34 -0500)

http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST RemoveThis @lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster RemoveThis @lists.debian.org

Eduard Bloch · External Since: Nov 29, 2004 Posts: 358

#include <hallo.h>
* William Pitcock [Sat, Jul 14 2007, 11:30:09PM]:

> As long as we don't hear about 'regressions from XMMS' as a result of
> a migration path provided by Debian, then you have fulfilled my request.

We cannot really fulfill any such request because we are only
distributors, not mind programming machines. Please realize that.

> This is where Gentoo initially failed to succeed in their migration.

I am sorry because you have been burnt with Gentoo transition, but
bitching is easy. And what do you expect us to do?

[1] Forget Audacious and keep XMMS
[2] Remove XMMS and let the users look for an replacement
[3] Remove XMMS and suggest them Audacious as replacement

For [2], they will be pissed and complain about Debian killing XMMS.
Some will look for a replacement and find Audacious, so we are close to
[3] anyway.
And for [3], they will expect Audacious do the same things that XMMS did
before. They need those features, the liked the way things worked in XMMS,
and they are not going to change their habits quickly. So you will get
complaints about "regressions" even if we put big notes into Debian.NEWS
(package upgrade notes) because many people are also lazy and don't read
manuals or upgrade notes.

Realistically, there is no way for you to get away from those complaints,
unless we go the way [1] and maintain XMMS until the end of times.

Eduard.
--
<cpt_nemo> Computer sind letztlich ein Mittel zum Zweck.

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST DeleteThis @lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster DeleteThis @lists.debian.org

Frank Lichtenheld · External Since: Nov 27, 2004 Posts: 551

On Sun, Jul 15, 2007 at 02:14:52PM +0200, Eduard Bloch wrote:
> * William Pitcock [Sun, Jul 15 2007, 12:06:47AM]:
> > Eduard Bloch <edi <at> gmx.de> writes:
> > > I see this in strace output with default configuration. Switching the
> > > setting between on-display and on-load makes it even worse, then it
> > > opens every file THREE times. Sorry, wtf?
> > This is a result of codec detection, and has been improved upon in
> > Audacious 1.3 (presently available in unstable?). XMMS does not perform
> > codec detection, but instead guesses on how to proceed. That behaviour
> > is broken in more than a few ways.
> I disagree. As said, I dislike a simple player touching every file for no
> good reason, and I do not consider "codec detection" a such one. There
> is simply no important information you would gather from that. Validity
> of the file and the length are only interesting at play time.
>
> I fail to see what is so "broken" about the XMMS way. It may be
> inconvinient for you when doing (re)design since you have to deal with
> uncerntainity. But, well, are you going to create a comfortable player or
> yet another piece of stupid multimedia software?

I think this part of the discussion is not really on-topic for debian-devel
anymore...

Gruesse,
--
Frank Lichtenheld <djpig.RemoveThis@debian.org>
www: http://www.djpig.de/

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST.RemoveThis@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster.RemoveThis@lists.debian.org

Steve Greenland · External Since: Nov 16, 2004 Posts: 151

On 14-Jul-07, 16:48 (CDT), William Pitcock <nenolod.DeleteThis@sacredspiral.co.uk> wrote:
> My issue is that I find it patently offensive that people attack my work
> simply because they wish to regain XMMS in their distribution. Maybe
> I am wrong in thinking that way, but I'm pretty sure I'm not.

I don't think you're wrong to be offended by jerks. However, based on
20 years of Usenet and mailling list experience, I do think you'll be
happier in the long run by learning to ignore them.

Steve

--
Steve Greenland
The irony is that Bill Gates claims to be making a stable operating
system and Linus Torvalds claims to be trying to take over the
world. -- seen on the net

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST.DeleteThis@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster.DeleteThis@lists.debian.org

William Pitcock · External Since: Jul 11, 2007 Posts: 14

Don Armstrong <don <at> debian.org> writes:

>
> We can certainly attempt to do so; I don't think anyone in this thread
> is contemplanting knowingly causing audacious's upstream harm.
>

I agree, in fact, I don't think Debian would handle such a migration
in the way that Gentoo handled it. I'm just bringing forward advice
that I have observed from previous migrations that have resulted in
problems for us upstream and requesting that people don't move in the
direction that they did.

So far, things seem to be OK.

> > So then you are saying we should reject all bugs against audacious
> > as provided by debian which do not refer to a debian bugtracker URL
> > anyway? I'll certainly be happy to implement that.
>
> It's entirely your decision as to what you do with your bug reports,
> but reporting bugs against the bts is what Debian users are encouraged
> to do, especially when they aren't certain whether the bug is an
> upstream problem or not.

I'll discuss that with Adam and see what he thinks would be a good idea
to do then. Since Debian users are encouraged to use sendbug(1), I have
not received many support cases from Debian users.

In fact, you could say that I have enjoyed the lack of support cases from
Debian users in general. This is probably because Audacious in Debian
does not have a gazillion insane patches on top of it, like some of the
other binary packages do.

>
> Considering the fact that he would be involved in any transition, he's
> perfectly capable of deciding and/or recommending veribiage with which
> he is satisfied.
>

Indeed, and I think he can come up with a way to handle such a
migration. I was simply pointing out potential problems and how they
could be avoided.

William

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST.DeleteThis@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster.DeleteThis@lists.debian.org

William Pitcock · External Since: Jul 11, 2007 Posts: 14

Josselin Mouette <joss <at> debian.org> writes:

>
> I think what they don't want is
> [4] Replace XMMS by a metapackage that installs Audacious in place
>

This is exactly what we want, as that will cause problems for us.

William

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST.RemoveThis@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster.RemoveThis@lists.debian.org

William Pitcock · External Since: Jul 11, 2007 Posts: 14

Steve Greenland <steveg <at> moregruel.net> writes:

>
> On 14-Jul-07, 16:48 (CDT), William Pitcock <nenolod <at> sacredspiral.co.uk>
wrote:
> > My issue is that I find it patently offensive that people attack my work
> > simply because they wish to regain XMMS in their distribution. Maybe
> > I am wrong in thinking that way, but I'm pretty sure I'm not.
>
> I don't think you're wrong to be offended by jerks. However, based on
> 20 years of Usenet and mailling list experience, I do think you'll be
> happier in the long run by learning to ignore them.
>
> Steve
>

I do ignore jerks. However, some jerks become problems for our project,
and flood our bugtrackers and distro bugtrackers with inane bugs which
point out some "flaw" in Audacious and then ask for XMMS to be restored.

Which reflects poorly on our project.

Luckily, I don't think Debian has so many jerks, as it's targeted at a
more mature audience than those distros that I speak of were.

What's funny is that some of these people who were doing this wound up
switching to Debian thinking that it would always keep XMMS for some
reason.

William

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST.RemoveThis@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster.RemoveThis@lists.debian.org

William Pitcock · External Since: Jul 11, 2007 Posts: 14

William Pitcock <nenolod <at> sacredspiral.co.uk> writes:

>
> Josselin Mouette <joss <at> debian.org> writes:
>
> >
> > I think what they don't want is
> > [4] Replace XMMS by a metapackage that installs Audacious in place
> >
>

Err to clarify, not doing [4] is exactly what we want. Sorry if anyone
got confused.

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST RemoveThis @lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster RemoveThis @lists.debian.org

William Pitcock · External Since: Jul 11, 2007 Posts: 14

Eduard Bloch <edi <at> gmx.de> writes:

> I disagree. As said, I dislike a simple player touching every file for no
> good reason, and I do not consider "codec detection" a such one. There
> is simply no important information you would gather from that. Validity
> of the file and the length are only interesting at play time.
>

We've added a "feature" for people who feel this way which allows detection to
be entirely postponed until playtime. However, that is only fully functional in
1.3 and later.

> I fail to see what is so "broken" about the XMMS way. It may be
> inconvinient for you when doing (re)design since you have to deal with
> uncerntainity. But, well, are you going to create a comfortable player or
> yet another piece of stupid multimedia software?
>

Well, I guess in your opinion we are going to create 'yet another piece of
stupid multimedia software.'

> And this is documented... where? Why not in the documentation balloons?
> Ever heard about ISO 9241? Please get a copy and read parts 13 and 14, I
> would also recommend reading VDI 3850 which is IMO a good tutorial in
> designing human machine interfaces.

It is documented at http://audacious-media-player.org/FAQ#11.4

Oh by the way, debian users can still use XMMS. There's nothing wrong with
stopping them from:

1) Doing ./configure; make; make install, or:

2) Copying the debian source archives from the previous release and using dbuild
to build packages for Lenny.

and odds are:

3) Somebody else will have already done this and made a repo somewhere.
Rarewares comes to mind.

So honestly, if Audacious is not a suitable replacement for you it does not
really matter as there are ways to retain XMMS.

William

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST.TakeThisOut@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster.TakeThisOut@lists.debian.org

"David Lopez Zajara · External Since: Jul 14, 2007 Posts: 9

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

I can comment out a point:

xmms have 11000+ popcon installations reported. The total reports of
popcon are 57000+. This is aprox 20% of users. Now, are talking for
removal an application for those users?...

I've read the buglist of xmms, and i think who more than one and two
bugs can be removed. Example of this can are #244984, #260754, #161702.
A lot of these bugs are already opened because the version doesn't have
changed (Are revised). I think who can be interesting revise the xmms
buglist and close the outdated bugs, for a real information of
application problems.

I've read in this thread, this is for a orphan package. If this is the
reason, doesnt have much more for talk, another mantainer will become.
xmms its a very popular package. I think who an orphan isn't a reason at
all for removal from arch.

- --
er_maqui DeleteThis @darkbolt.net || http://maqui.darkbolt.net
Linux registered user number: #363219
PGP key avaliable at KeyServ. KeyID: 0x4233E9F2
- ------------------------------------------------------------------
Los hombres somos esclavos de la historia
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFGt+EufFjA4EIz6fIRAvw9AJ9ElMcjfEhMeRt6BTzcNfyIovv0JgCggpnb
YQ5ETkzF03+PUlXPFzqZXmo=
=LPMJ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST DeleteThis @lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster DeleteThis @lists.debian.org

Julien BLACHE · External Since: Nov 14, 2004 Posts: 541

"David Lopez Zajara (Er_Maqui)" <er_maqui.TakeThisOut@darkbolt.net> wrote:

Hi,

> Personally i'm an xmms user, and now, with this, i have tested other
> options. Audacious isn't an option at all. Yes, we have the same

I've recently tried to switch to Audacious, and man it's buggy. Way
more buggy than xmms.

Random segfaults during playback, random segfaults while scrolling the
playlist; can't have it running for more than 2 minutes.

JB.

--
Julien BLACHE - Debian & GNU/Linux Developer - <jblache.TakeThisOut@debian.org>

Public key available on <http://www.jblache.org> - KeyID: F5D6 5169
GPG Fingerprint : 935A 79F1 C8B3 3521 FD62 7CC7 CD61 4FD7 F5D6 5169

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST.TakeThisOut@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster.TakeThisOut@lists.debian.org

Stanislav Maslovski · External Since: Jul 16, 2006 Posts: 53

On Tue, Aug 07, 2007 at 11:38:33AM +0200, Julien BLACHE wrote:
> "David Lopez Zajara (Er_Maqui)" <er_maqui.DeleteThis@darkbolt.net> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> > Personally i'm an xmms user, and now, with this, i have tested other
> > options. Audacious isn't an option at all. Yes, we have the same
>
> I've recently tried to switch to Audacious, and man it's buggy. Way
> more buggy than xmms.
>
> Random segfaults during playback, random segfaults while scrolling the
> playlist; can't have it running for more than 2 minutes.

If you are using the version from Etch I would recommend upgrading/backporting
to the version from unstable. It is quite usable.

--
Stanislav

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST.DeleteThis@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster.DeleteThis@lists.debian.org