[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: RFC: dropping alsa-0.5 support



Hola Jordi,

you are right, at this point there isn't any reason to keep alive
alsa-0.5, a part for getting confused unexperienced user. Unfortunately,
a part for the incredibly good job ALSA developers did -I'm a ALSA fan
and user since the first release....-, they often choose strategies that
tend to generate confusion and incompatibilities -if you are an ALSA
aficionado you might have experienced as well what I'm talking
about...:-( -..and unfortunately it doesn't seems to be a lesson they
have learned, just few days ago there was a quasi revolution in the
alsa-devel after a new unneeded change in the API created another
backward incompatibility. As keeping alive 0.5 was an error at the
first place. Indeed applications that still need 0.5 are either old
applications, or applications that do not require an high level of
efficiency, so they can easily run under 0.9 with OSS support, but it
must be a very limited number, to be honest at the moment i can't recall
any.

Taking out 0.5 is a good and even better, maybe even before that, it
would be important to get rid of alsaconf.

Alsaconf is even more misleading than any other alsa package.
It configures an ALSA file for the modutils that has such an old series
of incompatible parameters that is amazing the problem that can generate,
especially -and here is not completely ALSA devel fault- when people
think, "ok i install ALSA 0.9, i use alsaconf and then i fix it...". Sure
people should read instructions...but...writing an ALSA configuration
file, even if relatively easy it is anyway something the require a bit of
experience so one might be tempted of trying such bad hack.

With the DeMuDi project we are trying to:
- make discover to work with ALSA rather then oss.
(this could go into end of November 0.9 DeMuDi release)
- trying to make reconfiguration after installation easier. 
(this might be for next release)

Also you might be interested in the work we are doing, in fact we are
testing kernel-images, tuned with lowlatency and preempt patches, along
with  alsa-modules packaged (in two different standards, with and without
acpi patches applied)

The test we ran are positive for now.
In the long tradition of trying to not replicate already done jobs it
would be nice if we join forces on this task.

It goes without saying that more maintainers and developers interested in
the creation of a professional audio distribution would contribute to
DeMuDi, we will achieve a better result and an easier integration into
Debian as subproject.

Thanks,
	ciao,
	marco




Il 22/09/2002 alle 21:16:55, +0200, Jordi Mallach ha scritto:
> Hi,
> 
> I'm currently trying to fix ALSA packages a bit and the second NMU of
> the saga just got installed in the archive.
> 
> I'm just taking care of alsa-utils, alsa-lib and alsa-driver for now,
> but I *may* do alsa-modules at some point.
> 
> There's still alsa-*-0.5 packages around. The question is, do we still
> want them? They are unsupported versions by alsa-project now, and they
> are just collecting bugs. I think 0.9 works more or less ok at this
> point, and 0.5 could be just dropped from Debian.
> What to do with packages that depend on libasound1, too? Does anyone
> know if alsa-lib 0.5 is source compatible with 0.9?
> 
> Thanks,
> Jordi
> -- 
> Jordi Mallach Pérez  --  Debian developer     http://www.debian.org/
> jordi@sindominio.net     jordi@debian.org     http://www.sindominio.net/
> GnuPG public key information available at http://oskuro.net/~jordi/



-- 
************************************************************************
* marco trevisani                                                      *
* http://trevisani.mine.nu   marco@centrotemporeale.it                 *
* http://www.agnula.org -- A GNU/Linux Audio Distribution              *
* Neither MS-Word nor MS-PowerPoint attachments please:                *
* See http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html           *
* Gpg Fingerprint = 6096 84B8 046C A5C9 B538  255E 9FFF 1121 3AFB FFA6 *
************************************************************************

Attachment: pgpdrBq1zFY7E.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: