Re: Shouldn't kernel-image-2.6.x-y-z depend on alsa-base ?

[Goswin von Brederlow <brederlo@informatik.uni-tuebingen.de>]

jdthood@aglu.demon.nl writes:

>> Thomas Hood <jdthood@yahoo.co.uk> writes:
>> > 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.
>> 
>> The kernel could blacklist alsa modules by default and the alsa-base
>> would divert that to blacklist oss. That sounds the simplest.
>
>
> So to be clear the alternatives suggested so far are:
>
> 1. The two-package approach
>
>   * oss blacklists ALSA modules
>   * alsa-base blacklists OSS modules
>   * alsa-base Conflicts with oss
>   * kernel-image Depends on alsa-base | oss

I would prefer "oss | alsa-base". Oss always worked out of the box for
me and alsa never.

> 2. The diversion approach
>
>   * ALSA modules are blacklisted by default
>   * alsa-base de-blacklists ALSA modules and blacklists OSS modules
>   * linux26 installs alsa-base
>
> Have I got that right?
> -- 
> Thomas Hood

Why should linux26 install alsa-base? That would mean OSS will always
be blacklisted.

It would be beter if the D-I arch-detect looks at the soundcard of the
system and then recommends either OSS or ALSA as default depending on it.

MfG
        Goswin