PDA

View Full Version : 5.2 Almost Ready for prime time?



Daryle A. Tilroe
2004-05-31, 07:38
I have been running an older nightly without problems for
about a week now and was just curious if the last of the
bugs have been stamped out? Are there any other fixes that
need to be tested or are we almost ready for release?

--
Daryle A. Tilroe

Michel Fombellida
2004-05-31, 08:26
I hope the reversed channels on digital output will be fixes, in the latest
nightly it still happens from time to time (athough not as often as before).

Michel

Daryle A. Tilroe
2004-05-31, 10:08
Michel Fombellida wrote:

> I hope the reversed channels on digital output will be fixes, in the latest
> nightly it still happens from time to time (athough not as often as before).

Since I'm on analogue I have not been affected by or able to
help with this one. I wonder if it alone should be enough
to hold 5.2 since it is such a better release than 5.1.5
(the currently posted one) in many ways.

--
Daryle A. Tilroe

Daryle A. Tilroe
2004-05-31, 10:12
Daryle A. Tilroe wrote:

> Michel Fombellida wrote:
>
>> I hope the reversed channels on digital output will be fixes, in the
>> latest nightly it still happens from time to time (athough not as
>> often as before).
>
>
> Since I'm on analogue I have not been affected by or able to
> help with this one. I wonder if it alone should be enough
> to hold 5.2 since it is such a better release than 5.1.5
> (the currently posted one) in many ways.

I guess I should qualify this with the disclaimer that IIRC
the digital output swapping was also present in 5.1.5 and
perhaps worse.

--
Daryle A. Tilroe

Adam Spiers
2004-06-01, 13:20
Daryle A. Tilroe (daryle (AT) micralyne (DOT) com) wrote:
> I have been running an older nightly without problems for
> about a week now and was just curious if the last of the
> bugs have been stamped out? Are there any other fixes that
> need to be tested or are we almost ready for release?

This one's a show-stopper for me:

http://bugs.slimdevices.com/show_bug.cgi?id=323

Carsten Bormann
2004-06-01, 13:25
The nightlies (I've been running 05-23 and am now on 05-30) are
certainly better than 5.1.5.

However, I'm now seeing dropouts (very short audible gaps) on my SliMP3
-- the Squeezeboxen are fine.
The SliMP3 is wired, but there is a wireless bridge between its segment
and the server's segment.
This used to work fine -- I'm pretty sure at least with 5.1.5.
(The SliMP3 is still running 2.2, but I'm not aware of any change in
2.3 that would be of interest here.)
The buffer does not seem to empty (as far as that can be seen on the
hijacked progress bar), and the scrolling works nicely while this
happens.
Unfortunately, I don't understand the problem enough right now (and
don't have time to debug it) to submit a formal bug report, so I'm just
looking around for other people with this problem.

Gruesse, Carsten

PS.: There is a small Linux glitch: for both nightlies, I had to move
away the CPAN/arch directory as the supplied Time::HiRes creates this
little problem:
messages:May 31 09:56:01 moby su: Time::HiRes object version 1.59 does
not match bootstrap parameter 01.20 at
/usr/lib/perl5/5.6.0/i386-linux/DynaLoader.pm line 219.
messages.1:May 23 17:22:20 moby su: Time::HiRes object version 1.59
does not match bootstrap parameter 01.20 at
/usr/lib/perl5/5.6.0/i386-linux/DynaLoader.pm line 219.

seanadams
2004-06-01, 13:31
This may be related to a DHCP bug I'm working on - causes a bunch of
junk between the squeezebox and the base station, which you may not be
seeing in your packet trace.

We're going to hold off on shipping v.23 firmware until that's
addressed.


On Jun 1, 2004, at 1:20 PM, Adam Spiers wrote:

> Daryle A. Tilroe (daryle (AT) micralyne (DOT) com) wrote:
>> I have been running an older nightly without problems for
>> about a week now and was just curious if the last of the
>> bugs have been stamped out? Are there any other fixes that
>> need to be tested or are we almost ready for release?
>
> This one's a show-stopper for me:
>
> http://bugs.slimdevices.com/show_bug.cgi?id=323
>

Adam Spiers
2004-06-01, 13:41
Sean Adams (sadams (AT) slimdevices (DOT) com) wrote:
> On Jun 1, 2004, at 1:20 PM, Adam Spiers wrote:
> >This one's a show-stopper for me:
> >
> >http://bugs.slimdevices.com/show_bug.cgi?id=323
>
> This may be related to a DHCP bug I'm working on - causes a bunch of
> junk between the squeezebox and the base station, which you may not be
> seeing in your packet trace.

Anything I can do to help confirm/deny the two are related?

seanadams
2004-06-01, 13:47
On Jun 1, 2004, at 1:41 PM, Adam Spiers wrote:

> Sean Adams (sadams (AT) slimdevices (DOT) com) wrote:
>> On Jun 1, 2004, at 1:20 PM, Adam Spiers wrote:
>>> This one's a show-stopper for me:
>>>
>>> http://bugs.slimdevices.com/show_bug.cgi?id=323
>>
>> This may be related to a DHCP bug I'm working on - causes a bunch of
>> junk between the squeezebox and the base station, which you may not be
>> seeing in your packet trace.
>
> Anything I can do to help confirm/deny the two are related?


Sure - try running with a static IP on the squeezebox.

Adam Spiers
2004-06-01, 13:54
Sean Adams (sadams (AT) slimdevices (DOT) com) wrote:
> On Jun 1, 2004, at 1:41 PM, Adam Spiers wrote:
> >Sean Adams (sadams (AT) slimdevices (DOT) com) wrote:
> >>On Jun 1, 2004, at 1:20 PM, Adam Spiers wrote:
> >>>This one's a show-stopper for me:
> >>>
> >>>http://bugs.slimdevices.com/show_bug.cgi?id=323
> >>
> >>This may be related to a DHCP bug I'm working on - causes a bunch of
> >>junk between the squeezebox and the base station, which you may not be
> >>seeing in your packet trace.
> >
> >Anything I can do to help confirm/deny the two are related?
>
> Sure - try running with a static IP on the squeezebox.

I've only ever used a static IP. I'm not even running a DHCP server
anywhere these days.

Daryle A. Tilroe
2004-06-01, 14:03
Sean Adams wrote:

> On Jun 1, 2004, at 1:41 PM, Adam Spiers wrote:
>
>> Sean Adams (sadams (AT) slimdevices (DOT) com) wrote:
>>
>>> This may be related to a DHCP bug I'm working on - causes a bunch of
>>> junk between the squeezebox and the base station, which you may not be
>>> seeing in your packet trace.
>>
>> Anything I can do to help confirm/deny the two are related?
>
> Sure - try running with a static IP on the squeezebox.

FWIW I have never experienced this but I have always used
a static IP.

--
Daryle A. Tilroe

Daryle A. Tilroe
2004-06-01, 14:22
Adam Spiers wrote:

> I've only ever used a static IP. I'm not even running a DHCP server
> anywhere these days.

Say perhaps you should try turning on a DHCP server on
the squeezebox's subnet. Not setting the squeezebox
to DHCP but just having one running. I might be that
the squeezebox gets a little unhappy without a DHCP
server to talk to, even if it doesn't really need it.
I have seen stranger things.

--
Daryle A. Tilroe

seanadams
2004-06-01, 15:47
On Jun 1, 2004, at 1:54 PM, Adam Spiers wrote:

> Sean Adams (sadams (AT) slimdevices (DOT) com) wrote:
>> On Jun 1, 2004, at 1:41 PM, Adam Spiers wrote:
>>> Sean Adams (sadams (AT) slimdevices (DOT) com) wrote:
>>>> On Jun 1, 2004, at 1:20 PM, Adam Spiers wrote:
>>>>> This one's a show-stopper for me:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://bugs.slimdevices.com/show_bug.cgi?id=323
>>>>
>>>> This may be related to a DHCP bug I'm working on - causes a bunch of
>>>> junk between the squeezebox and the base station, which you may not
>>>> be
>>>> seeing in your packet trace.
>>>
>>> Anything I can do to help confirm/deny the two are related?
>>
>> Sure - try running with a static IP on the squeezebox.
>
> I've only ever used a static IP. I'm not even running a DHCP server
> anywhere these days.


Heh - okay that helps. :)

I'll get back to you on this.