1430506 - Install pulseaudio 2.0 on Centos build images

Status: RESOLVED FIXED

(Firefox Build System :: General, defect)

Comment 1

[Mike Hommey [:glandium]]

Attachment: Bug 1430506 - Install pulseaudio 2.0 on CentOS build images.

Switching to Debian build images will force a version bump from
pulseaudio 0.9.something to pulseaudio 2.0. Practically speaking, as
long as bug 1427150 is fixed (which it is), this is strictly better,
because this enables all the PA_CHECK_VERSION(2,0,0) code in libcubeb,
which handles port availability (whether output is plugged or not), and
with bug 1427150, it does so in a backward compatible manner.

Now, since this is a behavior change from what we're currently shipping,
this has the potential of triggering unexpected test failures, or break
sound for users. The likelyhood of the latter happening is rather low,
though, because Linux distros have been building with pulseaudio >= 2.0
for a long time and we haven't heard about port availability breaking
sound for them. But it's still better to decouple this change from the
switch to Debian.

We abuse the build-gtk3.sh script which installs gtk3 in the CentOS
build image to install pulseaudio as well.

Review commit: https://reviewboard.mozilla.org/r/212788/diff/#index_header
See other reviews: https://reviewboard.mozilla.org/r/212788/

Comment 2

[Nick Alexander :nalexander [he/him]]

Comment on attachment 8942546 [details]
Bug 1430506 - Install pulseaudio 2.0 on CentOS build images.

https://reviewboard.mozilla.org/r/212788/#review218602

lgtm.  Consider commenting that the new `yum install` line is for PA.

Comment 3

[Mike Hommey [:glandium]]

Comment on attachment 8942546 [details]
Bug 1430506 - Install pulseaudio 2.0 on CentOS build images.

Review request updated; see interdiff: https://reviewboard.mozilla.org/r/212788/diff/1-2/

Comment 4

[Pulsebot]

Pushed by [e-mail]:
https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/autoland/rev/e3cd1efb911c
Install pulseaudio 2.0 on CentOS build images. r=nalexander

Comment 5

[Dorel Luca [:dluca]]

https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/e3cd1efb911c

Comment 6

[Gregory Szorc [:gps]]

Do you think this is too risky to land during the soft freeze? If so, it should be backed out.

I just want to make sure we have an answer to this question on file...

Comment 7

[Mike Hommey [:glandium]]

I think it's low risk. However, I think it's risky enough that I don't want to land bug 1399679 before this change has made it through a cycle, and it's better if we can do that now with 59, and land bug 1399679 for 60. If we do see problems from this on 59, it's easier to backout just this.

Comment 8

[Gregory Szorc [:gps]]

I agree with the assessment that bug 1399679 is much riskier and we should land as many of the "minor" changes as possible in a separate cycle to flush out their impact. This bug included.