Re: [Alsa-user] another in kernel alsa update that breaks backward compatibilty?

[Sergei Steshenko <steshenko_sergei@list.ru>]

On Wed, 9 Aug 2006 13:54:29 -0400
"Dmitry Torokhov" <dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 8/9/06, Sergei Steshenko <steshenko_sergei@list.ru> wrote:
> > On Wed, 9 Aug 2006 12:36:23 -0400
> > "Dmitry Torokhov" <dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > You are confused. By your logic you do not need XEN at all - just take
> > > a kernel version + alsa and never change/update it - and viola!
> > > "stable" ABI.
> > >
> >
> > I simply described how one ABI (ALSA <-> kernel in this case) can
> > be stabilized, while new non-ALSA related features (and potentially
> > unstable ABI) can still be had.
> >
> > If computer has enough resources, practically every ABI can be
> > stabilized (if desired) this way - as long as the ABI is PCI slot
> > related.
> >
> 
> And in extreme case once you "stablizie" everything you end up with a
> system that is not upgradeable at all.
> 
> > That is, I can, for example, stabilize ALSA-kernel interface choosing
> > (ALSA 1.0.11 + kernel 2.6.17) and I can stabilize TV card interface
> > using (whatever v4l + kernel 2.6.18), etc,
> >
> 
> But you are not stabilizing ABI, you are freezing a subsystem. Stable
> ABI does not mean that bugs do not get fixed and new hardware support
> is not being addeed, as in your case.
> 

I did stabilize ABI - I can be using the same (bit to bit) audio driver
regardless of changes in the kernel not related to ALSA.

I can consider this whole ugly and clumsy construct as a "super"
kernel in which by construction nothing changes in the audio part.

That, I as end user don't care what developers break in the non-audio
part of this kernel - for me audio part is stable.

I let the non-audio part evolve while the audio part remains the
same - even at binary level.

--Sergei.

-- 
Visit my http://appsfromscratch.berlios.de/ open source project.