Re: RFC: alsa-driver update
Jordi Mallach wrote:
> I've been holding this for way too long already, but it really needs a
> resolution now.
> There are several bugs affecting the release against the alsa-driver package.
> The most prominent is that a a few drivers have non-free blobs in it, #483918.
> There are also many functionality bugs in several driver and laptops which is
> fixed in the new upstream release. Finally, alsa-source 1.0.16 will not compile
> against 2.6.25 (so I guess compiles against 2.6.26 are even worse).
> Fixing many of this issues isn't that easy in the current version in lenny,
> 1.0.16, so for a long time our plan was to ship the complete ALSA 1.0.17
> release. 1.0.17 got released a bit later than we expected, so I gave up as the
> freeze was already in place.
> However, fixing these problems in 1.0.16 is challenging and IMO, with lenny
> shipping 2.6.26, has little point. Lenny's kernel will have ALSA drivers
> 1.0.17, so syncing alsa-source to the kernel version is a good idea.
> One of the reasons to hold this was that I wasn't sure if using alsa-lib 1.0.16
> with alsa-source 1.0.17 would be a problem do to config missmatches or
> whatever. After weeks of 2.6.26 in unstable, it doesn't look like it is.
> Of course, alsa-lib 1.0.17 fixes another set of problems, but as it bumps the
> shlibs (3 or 4 symbols added), I left it out of the question.
> So, SVN is ready with a 1.0.16.dfsg-1 release to be uploaded. The bump of
> version number only affects the alsa-source package, alsa-base is not affected
> as it is all debian-only code. Also, alsa-source is optional, users will only
> be affected by the version bump if they manually compile an alsa-modules
> package out of it. That is a great minority of the users.
> I think uploading only alsa-driver 1.0.17 to lenny is the easiest way to fix
> the current RC problems in the package. If this isn't allowed in, we'll need
> help backporting driver and compilation fixes to 1.0.16, as we're currently a
> bit short on manpower on the ALSA team.