Questions about the changes introduced in alsa-utils 1.0.18

Questions about the changes introduced in alsa-utils 1.0.18

[Ozan Çağlayan]

Hi,

AFAIK, we may now have the possibility to drop salsa helper and use 
alsactl init instead of it in the udev rules file for alsa. I wonder how 
our distribution's old rules file should be modified in order to reflect 
this change. I looked at the rules file found in fedora but we were also 
doing some renaming and grouping in our rules file so I thought that 
this list would be a right place to get some ideas. Here's our rules 
file that we're using with 1.0.17:

SUBSYSTEM=="sound", GROUP="audio"
SUBSYSTEM=="snd", GROUP="audio"

KERNEL=="controlC[0-9]*", NAME="snd/%k"
KERNEL=="hwC[D0-9]*", NAME="snd/%k"
KERNEL=="pcmC[D0-9cp]*", NAME="snd/%k"
KERNEL=="midiC[D0-9]*", NAME="snd/%k"
KERNEL=="timer", NAME="snd/%k"
KERNEL=="seq", NAME="snd/%k"

SUBSYSTEM=="sound", KERNEL=="controlC*" RUN+="/usr/sbin/salsa"
SUBSYSTEM=="sound", KERNEL=="pcm*"  RUN+="/usr/sbin/salsa"

Fedora uses only two restore/store actions in their new package:

ACTION=="add", SUBSYSTEM=="sound", KERNEL=="controlC*", \
  RUN+="/sbin/alsactl -E ALSA_CONFIG_PATH=/etc/alsa/alsactl.conf --initfile=/lib/alsa/init/00main restore /dev/$name"
ACTION=="remove", SUBSYSTEM=="sound", KERNEL=="controlC*", \
  RUN+="/sbin/alsactl -E ALSA_CONFIG_PATH=/etc/alsa/alsactl.conf store /dev/$name"


And also ALSA_CONFIG_PATH was pointing to /etc/asound.state in salsa, is 
it safe and sufficient to change it to /etc/alsa/alsactl.conf in the 
udev rules file or do we need any other modifications in the code base?

And finally, what are the pros and cons of compiling alsa-plugins with 
speex support? What's the trade off if it is disabled?

Thanks,

-- 

Ozan Çağlayan

http://www.pardus.org.tr/eng
<ozan_at_pardus.org.tr>

_______________________________________________
Alsa-devel mailing list
Alsa-devel@alsa-project.org
http://mailman.alsa-project.org/mailman/listinfo/alsa-devel