From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Takashi Iwai Subject: Re: snd_ prefix for module options Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2002 16:15:31 +0200 Sender: alsa-devel-admin@lists.sourceforge.net Message-ID: References: <200210091937.05652@advent.drealm.org.uk> <87u1juxoit.fsf@sulphur.joq.us> Mime-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI 1.14.4 - "Hosorogi") Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Return-path: In-Reply-To: <87u1juxoit.fsf@sulphur.joq.us> Errors-To: alsa-devel-admin@lists.sourceforge.net List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: To: Jack O'Quin Cc: Peter L Jones , Karsten Wiese , alsa-devel@lists.sourceforge.net List-Id: alsa-devel@alsa-project.org At 10 Oct 2002 11:11:06 -0500, Jack O'Quin wrote: > > > Peter L Jones writes: > > > I think it's not so nice. Anyone running ALSA 0.9 should know it's > > not a "release" version and be happy to have (some breakage). If > > all that's needed is a quick edit of modules.conf, it shouldn't > > cause too many power-users grief. Those using distro upgrade tools > > should let their distro maintainer sort it out for them. > > This whole thread makes no sense to me at all. > > Can someone please explain what terrible problem we're trying to solve > that justifies introducing *any* breakage at all? good to hear the opossite opinion, too. the compatibility-breakage should be avoided, of course. > I don't mean to single out Peter for this one statement. But, I am > totally frustrated with the attitude that ALSA is only for power users > and that it's OK to introduce spurious incompatibilities on a whim. > > The excuse that 0.9 is not a "release" is wearing thin these days. > Since 0.5, which *is* a release, is "no longer supported", what are > ordinary users expected to run? OSS? > > ALSA is part of the 2.5 kernel now. It is mainstream Linux software, > good technology, needed by many users. Isn't it about time to start > thinking and acting that way? this is the very reason why "now" i asked. since the ALSA is now on the official kernel tree, we must follow to the standard rules, too. and the snd_ prefix is obviously ugly from this perspective. if we live alone as external, then we don't have to care - we could do as we like. but the mainstream means that such exception has to be excluded, too, at least before 2.5 turns into the "real mainstream", i.e. 2.6 (or 3.0). i guess the pain of this change wouldn't be so much once if there is a converter-script or if the distributor takes care of it. but, of course, my guess might be wrong, underestimated. Takashi ------------------------------------------------------- This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek Welcome to geek heaven. http://thinkgeek.com/sf