On Thu, Mar 10, 2005 at 12:12:37AM +0100, Thomas Hood wrote: > On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 20:40:40 +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote: > > Actually, the proposed solution that raised some approval was to split > > out the ALSA modules, just like the pcmcia modules. > I raised this idea on #debian-kernel and it was shot down.[0] > [0]http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-alsa-devel/2005-March/002039.html > As one of the ALSA maintainers, I have done what I can about this problem. > People who want to use ALSA can install alsa-base which blacklists OSS > modules. > If a fresh sarge/2.6 system lacks alsa-base then this would seem to be a > problem because in that case nothing enforces the mutual exclusion of OSS > and ALSA modules. If linux26 doesn't install alsa-base then perhaps it > should do so. Even better, possibly, would be to give the user a choice > between OSS and ALSA: if the user chooses ALSA then she gets alsa-base; > if she chooses OSS then she gets the (currently nonexistent) "oss" package > which blacklists ALSA modules. Considering you're talking about solutions that require updates to kernel-image packages *anyway*, why has no one suggested adding the necessary blacklist entries to these packages? Far better than removing a bunch of modules from the kernel-image at this late stage, IMHO. -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature