From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Takashi Iwai Subject: Forward: Re: questions for alsa-devel Date: Wed, 02 Oct 2002 17:03:28 +0200 Sender: alsa-devel-admin@lists.sourceforge.net Message-ID: References: <20021002145420.6F590146FB@Cantor.suse.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI 1.14.4 - "Hosorogi") Content-Type: message/rfc822 Return-path: Errors-To: alsa-devel-admin@lists.sourceforge.net List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: To: alsa-devel@lists.sourceforge.net List-Id: alsa-devel@alsa-project.org To: Thierry Vignaud Cc: Takashi Iwai , alsa-devel@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: questions for alsa-devel In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 02 Oct 2002 16:07:42 +0200." Date: Wed, 02 Oct 2002 10:58:44 -0400 From: Paul Davis Message-Id: <20021002145420.6F590146FB@Cantor.suse.de> [ the usual forward request for alsa-devel@lists.sourceforge.net ] >> i have a bit of a problem with all of this. why doesn't ALSA build >> "out of the box"? the description you've given of what is necessary >> to get this to work seems (for the most part) to be a bit >> ridiculous. > >insulting people that take time to answer you has always been a >constructive & efficient communication way. sorry, i wasn't trying to be insulting. its just that my experience of using ALSA for several years when built with a kernel from kernel.org has been that i just type: cd .../alsa-cvs/alsa-{driver,lib,utils} then cvscompile or ./configure && make && make install and it works. i was very suprised when this did not happen with my new mandrake system. >the problem will remains the same whatever you compiled the alsa >modules in the same time you compiled the kernel or as a separate >pacakge : applications linked with alsa-0.5 library won't be able to >dialog with alsa-0.9.0 kernel ... which applications are they? i know of very few ALSA apps that use 0.5, and to be honest, i think it would be much better for mandrake to not distribute them. >> updating from 8.2 to 9.0 over a 56k link strikes me as a pretty >> absurd step to take. > >then, unless you absolutely need the fixes provided by the latest alsa >driver for your card, there's no point in upgrading it without >upgrading libalsa and relevant applications... the applications mean nothing to me, since i write audio apps for linux, and any existing ones that use 0.5 are not of much use to me for many different reasons. i know about the rest of ALSA. thierry, perhaps you don't know that i've been a significant contributor to ALSA for several years, including writing 3 lowlevel drivers, and participating in design discussions and general bitching sessions on alsa-devel for quite some time now. >> having to specifically install kernel source to compile ALSA (and >> presumably other drivers) seems very odd to me. i would understand >> if ALSA just failed to compile without that step, but i didn't ask >> for or say no to a kernel source package, and ALSA compiled just >> fine. > >alsa can compile fine as an extra package providing you've kernel >headers and the right links in /boot and /lib/modules (config, build, >System.map, ...) well, i haven't changed any of that stuff since the install of mdk8.2, alsa compiled just fine, but you can't modprobe any of the results due to missing symbols. >if you want less drivers and less features, that's your problem. no, i just wanted a system that would work. microtel shipped me a system with an audio chip not properly supported by ALSA 0.5. since i've been using ALSA for 3 or 4 years now, i naturally assumed that it would be simple to compile and install 0.9. it seems i was wrong about that. --p ps. you probably know about the related problems with microtel shipping systems with a video chipset not properly supported by either the kernel framebuffer or X11. this isn't a purely sound-related issue :) ------------------------------------------------------- This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek Welcome to geek heaven. http://thinkgeek.com/sf