[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#682010: [mumble] Communication failures due to CELT codec library removal

On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 06:12:43PM -0400, Chris Knadle wrote:
> On Friday, July 20, 2012 17:48:07, Don Armstrong wrote:
> > I've updated the summary with the suggested changes (at the end).
> Please note that the table I had previously published to the original bug is 
> informative for when "server loopback" works when there is only a *single* 
> client connected.  It doesn't take into account situations when an opus-only 
> client and an non-opus client are both connected, in which case [audio] 
> communication always fails for one or more parties, depending on which codec 
> the server decides all clients must use.  [It would be helpful to make a note 
> of this above or below the table in the summary.  Thanks.]

Sorry to keep this going with one more message, but since it seems apropos
to the question of building an accurate table of where we might expect
compatibility, and the earlier question of what people use on Ubuntu and
other derivatives:

06:44 < HTT-Bird> I have Mint 9 LTS (based on Ubuntu 10.04 LTS) on this computer
                  and Mumble 1.2.3 (from a PPA), but Ubuntu doesn't provide a CELT
                  version newer than 0.7.1 and I am trying to connect to a Mumble
                  server that requires 0.11.0
06:44 < HTT-Bird> what am I to do?
06:46 <@pcgod> rebuild the client with bundled-celt enabled...
06:48 < HTT-Bird> pcgod: *sigh* :< (I have built things from source, but cluttering up
                  what isn't supposed to be a devbox with -dev packages isn't so hot)

So it would appear that shipping with celt 0.7.1 support is actually
not sufficient on its own for people to communicate with the existing
deployed base, and this is the advice people are given in those cases,
by the developer who disabled the speex support ...

That was an exchange from today, which I only saw just now.

 Like this wasn't complicated enough already,
 Ron  :/

Reply to: