# LibreTime 3 Beta Todos

**URL:** <https://discourse.libretime.org/t/libretime-3-beta-todos/529>\
**Category:** Dev Talk\
**Created:** [April 18, 2020, 2:51am UTC](https://discourse.libretime.org/t/libretime-3-beta-todos/529 "2020-04-18T02:51:05Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 20\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![robbt](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/flex036/user_avatar/discourse.libretime.org/robbt/32/15_2.png) [@robbt](https://discourse.libretime.org/u/robbt)\
**Post date:** [April 18, 2020, 2:51am UTC](https://discourse.libretime.org/t/libretime-3-beta-todos/529/1 "2020-04-18T02:51:05Z")

</div>

So I spent some time going through the beta 3 release blocker issue and I closed a number of issues and unassigned a few others and wrote a PR to fix one of them.

So here is my quick summary of what we need to fix before we finally belatedly declare ourselves a “beta”.

Fix CORS\_URL during the web-based install.  
Document and setup Lets Encrypt SSL for new installs and resolve Nginx Reverse Proxy issues  
Fix the web player & widget so that it works by default on as many browsers by default

Document how to easily upgrade and backup LibreTime

Remove the Facebook Widget (or test and fix it)

Test upgrading from Airtime 2.5  
Add a PPA for debian based systems

Merge Python 3 port

Watched Folders upgrade from Airtime 2.5 and/or for new installs

I’d also like us to have a deb based install so people can install and upgrade easily w/o running git. That and/or a docker based install are probably good goals but not necessary.

I also removed porting over the launch page that @ned-kelly had created because we have made no progress on that and so it’s hard to make it a blocker but a more user friendly page would be a good goal before we make an official release.

So I’ll try to assign the issues to myself or whomever is working on it so we can see what else needs to be done and/or needs someone to volunteer.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![paddatrapper](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/flex036/user_avatar/discourse.libretime.org/paddatrapper/32/675_2.png) [@paddatrapper](https://discourse.libretime.org/u/paddatrapper)\
**Post date:** [April 18, 2020, 9:34am UTC](https://discourse.libretime.org/t/libretime-3-beta-todos/529/2 "2020-04-18T09:34:17Z")

</div>

> [@robbt](#):
>
> Add a PPA for debian based systems

Do you mean adding the Ubuntu PPA into the installer? PPA’s are Ubuntu specific, so we would need to host our own APT repo for Debian if we wanted to do that. Alternatively, we get LibreTime into Debian, but that will take some work

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![robbt](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/flex036/user_avatar/discourse.libretime.org/robbt/32/15_2.png) [@robbt](https://discourse.libretime.org/u/robbt)\
**Post date:** [April 18, 2020, 11:08am UTC](https://discourse.libretime.org/t/libretime-3-beta-todos/529/3 "2020-04-18T11:08:24Z")

</div>

YeYeah I forgot PPAs were Ubuntu specific bit it’d be good to have the one with the silan fix by default with the installer. A repo with libretime packages would be cool as well for Debian I haven’t checked the status of the deb packaging. How is it going ?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![paddatrapper](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/flex036/user_avatar/discourse.libretime.org/paddatrapper/32/675_2.png) [@paddatrapper](https://discourse.libretime.org/u/paddatrapper)\
**Post date:** [April 18, 2020, 1:03pm UTC](https://discourse.libretime.org/t/libretime-3-beta-todos/529/4 "2020-04-18T13:03:39Z")

</div>

The deb package works, but contains a lot of stuff that needs working out before it would be able to get into Debian. Those are pretty much stalled and I think waiting for potentially an API and front-end rewrite would be useful so that we can get away from having to package a ton of old/outdated dependencies and can focus on using current software that is already packaged for Debian. So picking JS, Python, etc libraries that are already packaged and target versions that are in Debian or newer.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![robbt](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/flex036/user_avatar/discourse.libretime.org/robbt/32/15_2.png) [@robbt](https://discourse.libretime.org/u/robbt)\
**Post date:** [April 18, 2020, 11:32pm UTC](https://discourse.libretime.org/t/libretime-3-beta-todos/529/5 "2020-04-18T23:32:10Z")

</div>

Cool we should highlight it. I’m assuming it gegets built manually for each release ?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![paddatrapper](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/flex036/user_avatar/discourse.libretime.org/paddatrapper/32/675_2.png) [@paddatrapper](https://discourse.libretime.org/u/paddatrapper)\
**Post date:** [April 19, 2020, 12:06am UTC](https://discourse.libretime.org/t/libretime-3-beta-todos/529/6 "2020-04-19T00:06:04Z")

</div>

Yup. I build for amd64 Debian and upload the source changes to Launchpad for it to build for amd64 and i386

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![gusaus](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/flex036/user_avatar/discourse.libretime.org/gusaus/32/42_2.png) [@gusaus](https://discourse.libretime.org/u/gusaus)\
**Post date:** [April 21, 2020, 8:04pm UTC](https://discourse.libretime.org/t/libretime-3-beta-todos/529/7 "2020-04-21T20:04:46Z")

</div>

So does this project board reflect the current priorities? [https://github.com/LibreTime/libretime/projects/2](https://github.com/LibreTime/libretime/projects/2)

Are these the remaining development issues that need to be claimed and resolved? [https://github.com/LibreTime/libretime/projects/2#column-5144349](https://github.com/LibreTime/libretime/projects/2#column-5144349)

The rest are documentation? [https://github.com/LibreTime/libretime/projects/2#column-5144368](https://github.com/LibreTime/libretime/projects/2#column-5144368)

What about issues labeled as bug [Issues · libretime/libretime · GitHub](https://github.com/LibreTime/libretime/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+label%3Abug)

Are some of those potential release blockers?

Per [Proposal: Define our goals and roadblocks to release a 3.0 beta · Issue #544 · libretime/libretime · GitHub](https://github.com/LibreTime/libretime/issues/544#issuecomment-608034378)

> If one person (ideally not one of the core maintainers) could assume the PM/scrum master role, possibly we could coordinate some virtual sprints with the goal of 3.0.

Thoughts?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![paddatrapper](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/flex036/user_avatar/discourse.libretime.org/paddatrapper/32/675_2.png) [@paddatrapper](https://discourse.libretime.org/u/paddatrapper)\
**Post date:** [April 22, 2020, 10:15am UTC](https://discourse.libretime.org/t/libretime-3-beta-todos/529/8 "2020-04-22T10:15:36Z")

</div>

> [@gusaus](#):
>
> So does this project board reflect the current priorities? [https://github.com/LibreTime/libretime/projects/2](https://github.com/LibreTime/libretime/projects/2)

Yeah. Those need to get done for 3.0 to be released

> [@gusaus](#):
>
> Are some of those potential release blockers?

The ones that are should be labelled with ‘[3.0-release-blocker](https://github.com/LibreTime/libretime/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+label%3A3.0-release-blocker)’. Please let us know of any that you think are release-blockers that are not labelled as such

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![gusaus](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/flex036/user_avatar/discourse.libretime.org/gusaus/32/42_2.png) [@gusaus](https://discourse.libretime.org/u/gusaus)\
**Post date:** [April 22, 2020, 6:04pm UTC](https://discourse.libretime.org/t/libretime-3-beta-todos/529/9 "2020-04-22T18:04:06Z")

</div>

> [@paddatrapper](#):
>
> The ones that are should be labelled with ‘[3.0-release-blocker](https://github.com/LibreTime/libretime/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+label%3A3.0-release-blocker)’. Please let us know of any that you think are release-blockers that are not labelled as such

Shouldn’t the next major release be bug free? Would it make sense for @robbt to run point on this and assign or tag priority tasks w/ [help wanted](https://github.com/LibreTime/libretime/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+help+label%3A%22help+wanted%22) (or something like that)?

> [@LibreTime Development Priorities](https://discourse.libretime.org/t/libretime-development-priorities/51/14):
>
> So let’s budget approximately 75,000$ for a full time developer. That breaks down to 6,250$ a month. Let’s pretend every station using LibreTime paid 100$ a month towards development. That’s 62 stations we would need to agree to pay. 75k might be on the high side but it seems like a reasonable wage for someone with enough experience to do this and manage the project. We currently have 1 non profit donating 100 a month so we just need 61 more donors like that.

I’d like to help coordinate an effort to direct financial resources towards the 3.0 and other priorities [referenced in this post](https://discourse.libretime.org/t/libretime-development-priorities/51/13).

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![robbt](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/flex036/user_avatar/discourse.libretime.org/robbt/32/15_2.png) [@robbt](https://discourse.libretime.org/u/robbt)\
**Post date:** [April 23, 2020, 11:54am UTC](https://discourse.libretime.org/t/libretime-3-beta-todos/529/10 "2020-04-23T11:54:19Z")

</div>

No software is ever bug free, especially one as complex as LibreTime. There are just bugs we don’t know about, even fixing the ones we know about will require a lot more time than we currently have. The issue is a lack of development hours to dedicate to the project as much as anything else. The original Airtime was developed with many high $ amount grants to SourceFabric and a team of multiple full-time developers. We are keeping it alive as best we can. I plan on continuing to dedicate as much hours as I can towards it.

Anyways, getting to “beta” is our goal at this moment. Getting new developers in will happen as they show up. If we wanted to “meet” in real time more often to discuss priorities that might help but I don’t know that there are a lot of untapped resources/developers just waiting to join in.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![gusaus](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/flex036/user_avatar/discourse.libretime.org/gusaus/32/42_2.png) [@gusaus](https://discourse.libretime.org/u/gusaus)\
**Post date:** [April 23, 2020, 9:15pm UTC](https://discourse.libretime.org/t/libretime-3-beta-todos/529/11 "2020-04-23T21:15:47Z")

</div>

> [@robbt](#):
>
> The issue is a lack of development hours to dedicate to the project as much as anything else.

As referenced in my previous comment, funds to help devs spend more time to get 3.0 beta out the door will most likely come indirectly from services, a paid beta, or hackathons.

With a MVP platform to build on, OpenProducer can finally help facilitate all of the above. This could be a good entry point - [https://github.com/OpenProducer/openproducer-platform/issues/18](https://github.com/OpenProducer/openproducer-platform/issues/18)

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![gusaus](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/flex036/user_avatar/discourse.libretime.org/gusaus/32/42_2.png) [@gusaus](https://discourse.libretime.org/u/gusaus)\
**Post date:** [April 24, 2020, 1:56am UTC](https://discourse.libretime.org/t/libretime-3-beta-todos/529/12 "2020-04-24T01:56:43Z")

</div>

> [@robbt](#):
>
> The original Airtime was developed with many high $ amount grants to SourceFabric and a team of multiple full-time developers.

Probably old news, but I’m just noticing SourceFabric completely dropped support of the free open-source Airtime [https://www.sourcefabric.org/en/airtime/](https://www.sourcefabric.org/en/airtime/)

Would be pretty cool if, in the not too distant future, LibreTime could provide a better free and [SaaS version](https://discourse.libretime.org/t/any-interest-in-libretime-available-as-a-saas-with-hosting-and-support/121) for frustrated Airtime users.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![robbt](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/flex036/user_avatar/discourse.libretime.org/robbt/32/15_2.png) [@robbt](https://discourse.libretime.org/u/robbt)\
**Post date:** [April 24, 2020, 2:17pm UTC](https://discourse.libretime.org/t/libretime-3-beta-todos/529/13 "2020-04-24T14:17:00Z")

</div>

I personally don’t think SaaS is the way to go. I would prefer to offer support for running LibreTime on end-users own hardware and software and provide installation expertise etc. versus getting into the hosting game directly. In addition if anyone where to offer SaaS they would be bound by the Affero GPL v3 to release all of their code thus making it easy for anyone else to copy their setup so there is no real incentive here other than providing mark-up on rented cloud servers. I suspect that Airtime.pro has never been a big source of profit for SourceFabric and I am pretty sure they developed Airtime primarily with grant money they received from various NGOs etc to develop open-source radio software. I suspect that this might be the best route for LibreTime as well.

LibreTime is being used by more and more broadcasters and web streamers. Especially by those that value their freedom and autonomy from cloud services and SaaS platforms that can exert control over their users and create external dependencies. I’d like to make it so that LibreTime has a robust enough setup that people can easily install it on their own and don’t need to pay us to host it. I think that the business model NextCloud has followed is aspire to. I am always suspicious when a business model relies upon a freemium version with a paid version because there is a temptation to water down or limit functionality artificially on the freemium version. This is the issue the founder of NextCloud ran into when he founded OwnCloud and received a bunch of investments. There was a conflict between the community and the company because of this. See this talk at LibrePlanet 2019 that influenced my thinking here - [https://media.libreplanet.org/u/libreplanet/m/why-i-forked-my-own-project-and-my-own-company-31c3/](https://media.libreplanet.org/u/libreplanet/m/why-i-forked-my-own-project-and-my-own-company-31c3/).

Anyways thanks for moving the conversation forward, going to go back to working on release blockers for v3.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![gusaus](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/flex036/user_avatar/discourse.libretime.org/gusaus/32/42_2.png) [@gusaus](https://discourse.libretime.org/u/gusaus)\
**Post date:** [May 6, 2020, 9:18pm UTC](https://discourse.libretime.org/t/libretime-3-beta-todos/529/14 "2020-05-06T21:18:30Z")

</div>

So there are only 4 unassigned release blockers - [https://github.com/LibreTime/libretime/issues?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Aissue+label%3A3.0-release-blocker+no%3Aassignee](https://github.com/LibreTime/libretime/issues?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Aissue+label%3A3.0-release-blocker+no%3Aassignee)

Possibly 3 if the issues related to the player are combined -

> <https://github.com/LibreTime/libretime/issues/249#issuecomment-619243232>
>
> I do not know if it's the right place to submit a suggestion but I think this issue deserves it.
> There is...

As @paddatrapper mentioned in [https://chat.libretime.org/](https://chat.libretime.org/) the SSL one looks fairly straight forward [https://github.com/LibreTime/libretime/issues/88](https://github.com/LibreTime/libretime/issues/88)

The remaining unclaimed issues people were suggesting solutions or offering help -

> <https://github.com/LibreTime/libretime/issues/849>
>
> Hi,
> I've scanned podcast-ingest related issues, and have posted on discourse...
> Just curious about what triggers a podcast download? How often is the...

  

> <https://github.com/LibreTime/libretime/issues/957>
>
> I have been having a hard time getting Libretime to run correctly behind my reverse proxy. I have added the CORS...

Does that seem like an accurate assessment?

If there are folks interested/able to helping get 3.0 out the door, please don’t be shy about jumping into the issue queue or joining [https://chat.libretime.org/libretime/channels/developers](https://chat.libretime.org/libretime/channels/developers)

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![gusaus](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/flex036/user_avatar/discourse.libretime.org/gusaus/32/42_2.png) [@gusaus](https://discourse.libretime.org/u/gusaus)\
**Post date:** [May 7, 2020, 6:51pm UTC](https://discourse.libretime.org/t/libretime-3-beta-todos/529/15 "2020-05-07T18:51:43Z")

</div>

> [@gusaus](#):
>
> As @paddatrapper mentioned in [https://chat.libretime.org/](https://chat.libretime.org/) the SSL one looks fairly straight forward [Problem: Add support for SSL into the installation process and/or docs · Issue #88 · libretime/libretime · GitHub](https://github.com/LibreTime/libretime/issues/88)

This issue has now been claimed by [mepholic](https://github.com/mepholic)!

> <https://github.com/LibreTime/libretime/issues/88#issuecomment-624974311>
>
> This is another longer-term priority, but it would be a good best practice addit…ion.
> I'm not sure the best way to approach the actual SSL certs etc, but it makes sense for us as a project to make it easy enough for people to figure out how to do this without needing to learn how to configure Apache by trial and error.

Down to two unclaimed release blockers as referenced in the [previous comment.](https://discourse.libretime.org/t/libretime-3-beta-todos/529/14)

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![gusaus](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/flex036/user_avatar/discourse.libretime.org/gusaus/32/42_2.png) [@gusaus](https://discourse.libretime.org/u/gusaus)\
**Post date:** [April 20, 2021, 4:46pm UTC](https://discourse.libretime.org/t/libretime-3-beta-todos/529/16 "2021-04-20T16:46:03Z")

</div>

Seems like one of the main goals/challenges coming out of yesterday’s [online meeting](https://discourse.libretime.org/t/online-libretime-meetup-19-april-2021-19-00-utc/860) was the usual “how do we get a 3.0 out the door?”.

If the release blocker board is accurate it seems like there are just a few blockers on the todo list and a few more in progress. Out of those, just a couple unclaimed.

> **[LibreTime/libretime](https://github.com/LibreTime/libretime/projects/2)**
>
> cts/2

Would be good to know if folks on working release blockers need help.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![xabispacebiker](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/flex036/user_avatar/discourse.libretime.org/xabispacebiker/32/24_2.png) [@xabispacebiker](https://discourse.libretime.org/u/xabispacebiker)\
**Post date:** [April 21, 2021, 8:33am UTC](https://discourse.libretime.org/t/libretime-3-beta-todos/529/17 "2021-04-21T08:33:22Z")

</div>

> [@robbt](#):
>
> Document and setup Lets Encrypt SSL for new installs and resolve Nginx Reverse Proxy issues  
> Fix the web player & widget so that it works by default on as many browsers by default

I can take care of these two tasks (document SSL and replace the player), I’ve been recently messing around with icecast and libretime for configuring SSL, so I have it pretty fresh. And regarding the player, I have been thinking since a while about changing it to [https://jplayer.org](https://jplayer.org), I don’t know what you think about it.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![paddatrapper](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/flex036/user_avatar/discourse.libretime.org/paddatrapper/32/675_2.png) [@paddatrapper](https://discourse.libretime.org/u/paddatrapper)\
**Post date:** [April 21, 2021, 10:05am UTC](https://discourse.libretime.org/t/libretime-3-beta-todos/529/18 "2021-04-21T10:05:30Z")

</div>

The SSL documentation is already there - [LibreTime - SSL Configuration](https://libretime.org/docs/ssl), but probably needs some more visibility under the For System Administrators at the bottom of the docs page.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![gusaus](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/flex036/user_avatar/discourse.libretime.org/gusaus/32/42_2.png) [@gusaus](https://discourse.libretime.org/u/gusaus)\
**Post date:** [April 21, 2021, 6:16pm UTC](https://discourse.libretime.org/t/libretime-3-beta-todos/529/19 "2021-04-21T18:16:32Z")

</div>

> [@xabispacebiker](#):
>
> And regarding the player, I have been thinking since a while about changing it to [https://jplayer.org](https://jplayer.org), I don’t know what you think about it.

@xabispacebiker Are you talking about the issue below? If yes, it looks like there’s been some progress. Might be good to chime in and ask for a status update.

> <https://github.com/LibreTime/libretime/issues/249>
>
> I do not know if it's the right place to submit a suggestion but I think this is…sue deserves it.
> 
> There is a big discussion on the internet about why we should avoid the use of Adobe Flash in our developments. I personally hate it and block any site with Adobe Flash, and this is not just my personal preference, in the near future, Flash will be obsoleted. Actually there is no need for it to get a music player. Nowadays every browser supports HTML5 audio tags. (Still we could support some back compatibility in case of users with older browser) But I would suggest to REPLACE FLASH ASAP !
> 
> I thought we were using JPlayer http://www.jplayer.org
> 
> \## tracks
> 
> \* \[x\] #518

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![gusaus](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/flex036/user_avatar/discourse.libretime.org/gusaus/32/42_2.png) [@gusaus](https://discourse.libretime.org/u/gusaus)\
**Post date:** [April 21, 2021, 6:34pm UTC](https://discourse.libretime.org/t/libretime-3-beta-todos/529/20 "2021-04-21T18:34:37Z")

</div>

So I guess this is the only unclaimed issue?

> <https://github.com/LibreTime/libretime/issues/1123>
>
> \*\*Describe the bug\*\*
> We will most likely be affected by \[travis-ci only offerin…g a limited free tier\](https://blog.travis-ci.com/2020-11-02-travis-ci-new-billing) going forward.
> 
> \*\*To Reproduce\*\*
> Steps to reproduce the behavior:
> 1. Use travis-ci with the new free tier for a bit
> 2. Run into limit
> 3. Be frustrated
> 
> \*\*Expected behavior\*\*
> Not to run into rate limiting when contributing to LibreTime.
> 
> \*\*LibreTime version:\*\*
> CI/CD related.
> 
> \*\*Additional context\*\*
> Travis recently introduced these limits.
> 
> IMHO the obvious solution is a refactor towards using \[GitHub Actions\](https://github.com/features/actions).
> 
> I put the 3.0-release-blocker tag on this since we don't have a generic release blocker label and I'd like to get this fixed before we do the next alpha or beta point release.
> 
> \*\*Related\*\*
> \* #1112 (ooff, I didn't even realize)

> [@gusaus](#):
>
> Would be good to know if folks on working release blockers need help.

@hairmare @robbt @paddatrapper @xabispacebiker @kmahelona Do you need any help with issues you’ve claimed and/or working on? Possibly you could provide a quick status update in the related Github issue(s)?

[https://github.com/LibreTime/libretime/projects/2](https://github.com/LibreTime/libretime/projects/2)

[Next page](https://discourse.libretime.org/t/libretime-3-beta-todos/529.md?page=2)