[SOLVED] LSB channels and 16bit fading

[giacomo]

I've a show programmed last year where I control a video software on the same laptop with the E1.31 protocol, originally I used v.4.12.4 - Linux/Gnome.
With v.4.12.5 the cue list has a severe regression:
during the cross-fade time (back or forward) the video jumps to black and it reappears again after the transition.
Visually the dmx monitor seems fine so I guess there is something wrong with the data transmitted.

I've downgraded 2 times the video software with the same result, after a bit of panic for the broken show... I've tried v.4.12.3 and the video was working as expected.
Unfortunately v.4.12.4 is not anymore in debian repositories, can someone upload this package? (qlcplus and qlcplus-data)
Thanks.

Of course I can provide the original file if needed.

[mcallegari]

Already reported and fixed
https://github.com/mcallegari/qlcplus/issues/1348

Version 4.12.4 is here
https://www.qlcplus.org/downloads.html

[giacomo]

glad to hear and thanks,
hopefully someone else will find this post useful.
I've watched the download page, aren't those packages for ubuntu?

[sbenejam]

Giacomo,
For QLC+ 4.12.4 use this link. https://www.qlcplus.org/downloads/4.12. ... _amd64.deb

[mcallegari]

Yes, the official packages are for Ubuntu (deb files)

[edogawa]

I'm not very familiar with Debian/Ubuntu packaging, but if e.g. these "official" Ubuntu packages won't run on Debian, we easily could provide Debian Buster/Bullseye packages from our OBS repo. The Debian package @giacomo was referring to above (with the split out -data subpackage) comes from official Debian package sources and is not under our control.

Adding a new target distro to our OBS project is a matter of minutes, and I've already successfully built Debian/Raspberry Pi OS packages from a qlcplus-qt5-git package branch in my home repo, so I know it will work from the same set of control files.

I'm just not advertising or announcing these in order not to interfere with Massimo's QLC+ Raspi image and debs selling...

[giacomo]

hello dear community, it's nice to see all your reactions.
Thanks Edgar, that was esactly my question because I'm not so technical to be aware of the differences between ubuntu and debian,
in the past I've used many times the ubuntu package in debian but after seeing a very complex show broken I'm more worried now, it would be too stressful to find it out during a setup day. Fortunately I took that past day to play a bit with qlcplus after a while.
For the moment don't bother with OBS just for me, I will report a bug to debian and hopefully they will update the package.
If I can say something about the OBS repo (at this time of writing the service is unavailable), the fedora packages are too outdated and archlinux users will normally build from aur, because they will get system updates as well.

[edogawa]

the fedora packages are too outdated

sorry, I don't always follow the release cycles of the various distros, i missed to add F36 when overhauling the project structure a few months ago. Added now (and removed 33)...

As for Arch, I don't care, PKGBUILD was already there so I thought we better keep it.

[jlebleu]

Hi,

I'm not very familiar with Debian/Ubuntu packaging, but if e.g. these "official" Ubuntu packages won't run on Debian, we easily could provide Debian Buster/Bullseye packages from our OBS repo. The Debian package @giacomo was referring to above (with the split out -data subpackage) comes from official Debian package sources and is not under our control.

As the current maintainer of the Debian package I think it would be a shame to make this work twice by providing two ways of installing QLC+ on Debian - and I am wondering which one will be the "official" way… It would be much better to work together in my opinion and do not create - one more - barrier. Any suggestions or contributions to the Debian package is really welcome, by reporting a bug - I admit that the interface is quite ugly but it do the job at least! - submitting a merge request or just email me.

By the way, I would suggest if possible to create an upstream bugfix release when such bugs are discovered. It would ease the propagation of the fix for each platform and distribution - without the need to manually import the fixes at package maintainers' sole discretion - and prevent the users to downgrade the version. One way to do that could be to create a branch for that version and cherry-pick the relevant commits - but I don't have the whole picture of QLC+.

in the past I've used many times the ubuntu package in debian but after seeing a very complex show broken I'm more worried now, it would be too stressful to find it out during a setup day. Fortunately I took that past day to play a bit with qlcplus after a while.
For the moment don't bother with OBS just for me, I will report a bug to debian and hopefully they will update the package.

Thanks for reporting a bug, a new Debian release is on the way. However, if you are looking for stability, I would recommend you to stick on the stable version of Debian - currently Bullseye. You will not have the last version of QLC+ for one or two years, but you will never have an upgrade which could introduce some bugs. If you are not familiar with the Debian releases lifecycle, you can find an entry point here.

Cheers,

Jérôme

[giacomo]

Hi Jérôme and thanks for the comment,
I agree with you and probably everybody would beneficiate by an upstream bugfix release, more maintainers involved in bugs/fixes could be just better.
I've been following qlcplus since the beginning and OBS was a solution in its early life, today all the main distros have the package.
Still, OBS is useful for testing new features with the git-builds, average user like me are not going to compile it.

Cheers

[mcallegari]

OK, this thread is derailing to some other topic, but here's my opinion.
Debian is (was?) well known to be very conservative about advancing packages.
Now you're proposing to upstream patches without even changing the software version which is not the way this project works.
I know I'm slow, but it doesn't even make sense to have 4.12.5-1, 4.12.5-2, 4.12.5-37.
I'm pretty sure I would lose track of who is who.
4.12.5 is an unfortunate release, so I'm going to release 4.12.6 pretty soon. Can you please all be patient and wait for the new version?

Also, the "official" version is the one I build myself. Period. If you Jerome, place 74 patches on top of what I release, how can I give proper support to Debian users?
I have nothing against you and I surely don't want to raise barriers, but there's a real technical problem here and let's discuss how to face it.
Actually, I'm very grateful to you and contributors if qlcplus is in the official debian repos. So, well done!
Thanks

[jlebleu]

OK, this thread is derailing to some other topic, but here's my opinion.

I agree, but if it is the opportunity to discuss about that, I will also give my opinion and suggestions!

Debian is (was?) well known to be very conservative about advancing packages.

It is maybe the distribution which have the most rules and documents, but I think it helps a lot to provide its stability and its collaborative software development and testing goals - worlwide.

Now you're proposing to upstream patches without even changing the software version which is not the way this project works.
I know I'm slow, but it doesn't even make sense to have 4.12.5-1, 4.12.5-2, 4.12.5-37.
I'm pretty sure I would lose track of who is who.
4.12.5 is an unfortunate release, so I'm going to release 4.12.6 pretty soon. Can you please all be patient and wait for the new version?

You can know all the patches which are applied on top of the upstream release by looking into the directory debian/patches. As a Debian release is intended to be maintained for a couple of years - and no new upstream release will be integrated - there is sometime no other choices to modify the source - especially when a bug is reported and fixed upstream. I admit however that I could wait a bit this time and instead ask you if a new version was planned soon, my apologies - I had free time to do that and wanted to troubleshoot giacomo.

Also, the "official" version is the one I build myself. Period. If you Jerome, place 74 patches on top of what I release, how can I give proper support to Debian users?
I have nothing against you and I surely don't want to raise barriers, but there's a real technical problem here and let's discuss how to face it.

I conceive that you want to keep control on your software. I would still suggest to think about the software development in a less centralized way - which are not incompatible in my opinion as soon as you are in charge of its development. For example, the support to the Debian users could be done on the Debian bug tracking system. It is its goal: the Debian community is in charge of answering to the people - e.g. by reporting the bug upstream if it was not already done, redirecting to the forum or another resource. Like the packaging which can be managed in a relationship of trust by one or more Debian maintainers - as it is the case? You will spend less time on that without the need to know each distribution with its particularities. I see that you are doing a huge work which must take considerable time - mostly for free I guess - and I am very thankful as a QLC+ user, but I am wondering how you feel about all that work and charge, and if it is not too much for one person - even if you have some contributions. That was just my thought, maybe wrong, but just trying to find what could be the best for you and the software development.

Actually, I'm very grateful to you and contributors if qlcplus is in the official debian repos. So, well done!

You are welcome, it was a team work!

[mcallegari]

To be honest, delegating the maintenance of some packages would help me and the project.
I partially did with the help of edogawa with the OBS builds (which btw include Ubuntu packages lol)

If you say Debian packages are ready in a reasonable time after the release, then the task is all yours!
i just need to point users to
A) the repository where to download the latest deb file
B) the place where to report issues found on a specific package

As for patches, it's still awkward to me that 4.12.5 includes the E1.31 patch. Basically that version is no longer 4.12.5 IMHO...it's something else.
But anyway, if that's the Debian policy, then it's ok for me. I'll notify you when a commit should be included in the patches list.

Last thing: if I remove the deb file from the download page, the first question users will ask is: I don't use Debian. Where do I find the Ubuntu package like before?
What should I reply?

[jlebleu]

To be honest, delegating the maintenance of some packages would help me and the project.
I partially did with the help of edogawa with the OBS builds (which btw include Ubuntu packages lol)

Good to know, so let's go further together!

If you say Debian packages are ready in a reasonable time after the release, then the task is all yours!

Yes generally, unless big changes or port which require more work on the Debian packaging but it seems exceptional - just maybe the upcoming switch to qml. However, the last release will just be in testing and unstable "branches" of Debian. As a quick summary just in case: unstable is the rolling development version of Debian, where all new packages version are uploaded. After few days, if tests pass and no blocking bug exists, it is automatically integrated into testing - the next stable release of Debian. And when testing is ready - generally after one or two years - it became the new stable release which will not receive any major packages upgrades. You can find all Debian releases here.

i just need to point users to
A) the repository where to download the latest deb file
B) the place where to report issues found on a specific package

A) As qlcplus is in main archive - as we can see here, there is no need to add any extra repository. QLC+ can be installed by any GUI package manager - e.g. Software, in GNOME - or from the command-line.
B) In Debian, here are the bugs reported for the qlcplus package. There is some documentation on how to report a bug, the simplest way is with reportbug software.

As for patches, it's still awkward to me that 4.12.5 includes the E1.31 patch. Basically that version is no longer 4.12.5 IMHO...it's something else.
But anyway, if that's the Debian policy, then it's ok for me. I'll notify you when a commit should be included in the patches list.

Honestly, it should not happen generally - from what I know, since I don't maintain a lot of packages in Debian… It should only be done when the freeze of testing is close - which means that this qlcplus version will remain in this release for ever - and no new release are planned by your side to fix some blocking issues like this. So for the E1.31 patch, I should have waited for a new release instead since there was no emergency and ask you. The other patch is for the rounded values issue - in order to build the package on arm64 and i386.

Last thing: if I remove the deb file from the download page, the first question users will ask is: I don't use Debian. Where do I find the Ubuntu package like before?
What should I reply?

Since Ubuntu is based on Debian, qlcplus is already in Ubuntu repositories too as we can see here. So QLC+ can be installed by any package manager too. And if someone want to have the latest version, there is still the OBS build! I think this way it will prevent conflicts which can occur when mixing packages from the distribution repository and those which are installed manually - as it is the case for this bug I think.

[giacomo]

"
I've a show programmed last year where I control a video software on the same laptop with the E1.31 protocol, originally I used v.4.12.4 - Linux/Gnome.
With v.4.12.5 the cue list has a severe regression:
during the cross-fade time (back or forward) the video jumps to black and it reappears again after the transition.
"

hi Massimo,
qlc+ 4.12.6 from Jérôme, I still have the same issue.
Just discovered it yesterday, I didn't downgrade this time to double check it but I guess it will be the same.
Maybe a clue:
the transitions from one cue to another do not work, when I stop the cue list then yes the video fade out.

[giacomo]

yes I confirm it: I've installed v.4.12.4 and the show plays as intended, same laptop and same software for the video.

[mcallegari]

Giacomo, as usual I need a sample project, steps to reproduce, the observed misbehavior and the expected behavior.
Thanks

[giacomo]

I know but how can I provide a sample project?
I control a video software (not free) on the same laptop with the E1.31 protocol, address 127.0.0.1
The problem seems to be in the Cue List, the data is not transmitted during the cross-fade (video output goes black just for the transition time).
Could you suggest me what free video software should I use for the sample?
I will do it.

[janosvitok]

Giacomo,

maybe wireshark capture of E1.31 (good and bad behavior) is enough to understand the problem.

Edit:
Also, please describe how do you control the software (how are the E1.31 channels mapped to commands or whatever).

Jano

[giacomo]

Hi Jano, I'm on linux and it seems that wireshark not.
I've tried a very simple transition from scratch with 4.12.6 and it was working, tried again the original show and it's correct only with 4.12.4, maybe this past year something has changed internally in the cue list.
For your info the software is a media-server and is controlled with dmx, each channel controls a parameter.
Anyway I propose that we don't lose more time on this issue, I'm tired to downgrade and test qlc+, upgrade and test it again.
Better to focus on v.5