On 11 Oct 2002, Jack O'Quin wrote:
Jack O'Quin wrote:
Can someone please explain what terrible problem we're trying to solve
that justifies introducing *any* breakage at all?
ALSA is part of the 2.5 kernel now. It is mainstream Linux software,
good technology, needed by many
On 11 Oct 2002, Jack O'Quin wrote:
Are you saying that the snd_ prefix violates standard Linux
kernel rules for device driver options? Did the kernel developers
request this change?
Jaroslav Kysela [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Well, they had objections but not major to disallow inclusion
At 10 Oct 2002 11:11:06 -0500,
Jack O'Quin wrote:
Peter L Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I think it's not so nice. Anyone running ALSA 0.9 should know it's
not a release version and be happy to have (some breakage). If
all that's needed is a quick edit of modules.conf, it
Jack O'Quin wrote:
Can someone please explain what terrible problem we're trying to solve
that justifies introducing *any* breakage at all?
ALSA is part of the 2.5 kernel now. It is mainstream Linux software,
good technology, needed by many users. Isn't it about time to start
At Wed, 09 Oct 2002 10:41:18 -0700,
Florian Bomers wrote:
Takashi Iwai wrote:
(...)
a convenient method is to check and rewrite /etc/modules.conf
automatically when alsa-driver is installed. (btw, in the case of
debian, do we need to check another path, too?)
i'm not sure whether
Peter L Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I think it's not so nice. Anyone running ALSA 0.9 should know it's
not a release version and be happy to have (some breakage). If
all that's needed is a quick edit of modules.conf, it shouldn't
cause too many power-users grief. Those using distro
On Thursday 10 Oct 2002 17:11, Jack O'Quin wrote:
[snip]
I don't mean to single out Peter for this one statement. But, I am
totally frustrated with the attitude that ALSA is only for power users
and that it's OK to introduce spurious incompatibilities on a whim.
The excuse that 0.9 is not a
Jack O'Quin wrote:
(...)
I don't mean to single out Peter for this one statement. But, I am
totally frustrated with the attitude that ALSA is only for power users
and that it's OK to introduce spurious incompatibilities on a whim.
We'd all be happy if ALSA was already a finalized API and
Takashi Iwai wrote:
so, i'd like to ask you how do you think to remove this snd_ prefix.
of course, there is one and only big problem - compatibility!
the questions are
- whether we should really do it or not? is it worthy?
I'd say yes.
- when? now or after 0.9.0-final release?
Better
At Wed, 9 Oct 2002 08:03:44 +0200 (CEST),
Jaroslav wrote:
On Tue, 8 Oct 2002, [iso-8859-1] Chris Rankin wrote:
--- Takashi Iwai [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi,
so, i'd like to ask you how do you think to remove
this snd_ prefix.
of course, there is one and only big problem -
--- Jaroslav Kysela [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue,
8
alsa-module-name=snd_this=x,snd_that=y,snd_the_other=z
No, it should be: alsa-module-name=x,y,z . The
prefix for alsa-module-name
is required, because we have collisions with OSS
drivers.
I'm not talking about snd on the
Hi,
so far, all alsa modules use snd_ prefix for each module option.
iirc, there was a problem regarding namespace at the time of 2.0
kernel, and this was some workaround to avoid confliction.
but 2.2 and later kernels have no such a problem at all.
so, i'd like to ask you how do you
At Wed, 9 Oct 2002 12:15:17 +0200,
Karsten Wiese wrote:
Hi,
so far, all alsa modules use snd_ prefix for each module option.
iirc, there was a problem regarding namespace at the time of 2.0
kernel, and this was some workaround to avoid confliction.
but 2.2 and later kernels have no
snip (proposal to remove snd_ prefix for each module option)
Takashi Iwai [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
a convenient method is to check and rewrite /etc/modules.conf
automatically when alsa-driver is installed. (btw, in the case of
debian, do we need to check another path, too?)
Yes.
I'm
Takashi Iwai wrote:
(...)
a convenient method is to check and rewrite /etc/modules.conf
automatically when alsa-driver is installed. (btw, in the case of
debian, do we need to check another path, too?)
i'm not sure whether it's good manner or not, though.
I guess providing a script in
On Wednesday 09 Oct 2002 11:19, Takashi Iwai wrote:
At Wed, 9 Oct 2002 12:15:17 +0200,
[snip]
a convenient method is to check and rewrite /etc/modules.conf
automatically when alsa-driver is installed. (btw, in the case of
debian, do we need to check another path, too?)
Yes.
On Tuesday 08 Oct 2002 15:04, Takashi Iwai wrote:
[snip]
so, i'd like to ask you how do you think to remove this snd_ prefix.
of course, there is one and only big problem - compatibility!
the questions are
- whether we should really do it or not? is it worthy?
Yes - I find it confusing:
I like it a lot. Due to the prefix I was able to cleanly remove 0.5.x from my
system, and we might want to do that later on with 0.9, too :)
And since I don't see any benefit in removing the prefix - other than cosmetic -
keeping it will save time for distribution's programmers, sysadmins,
On Tue, 8 Oct 2002, [iso-8859-1] Chris Rankin wrote:
--- Takashi Iwai [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi,
so, i'd like to ask you how do you think to remove
this snd_ prefix.
of course, there is one and only big problem -
compatibility!
I think it's a worthy goal. It's just noise in
19 matches
Mail list logo
