Bill Unruh wrote: > On Tue, 13 Jun 2006, John Haxby wrote: > >> >> On the other hand, perhaps someone would volunteer to de-couple the ALSA >> modules from the rest of the kernel in the kernel build so that the ALSA >> modules can be updated and then we'll get to be able to install newer >> versions of ALSA without waiting for Linus to pick up the next version >> of ALSA. > That used to be the situation. The alsa people fought very hard to get > the > sound coupled to the kernel, since those modules really are a part of the > kernel. What you suggest goes in the opposite direction. That's not what I meant, I expressed myself poorly.
When you take the kernel .src.rpm and build it you get a bunch of binary RPMs, i686 ones, smp ones, xen ones, etc. You also get kernel-devel RPMs that are intended for people who want to (for example) build modules. What I was suggesting was pulling out the alsa modules into a separate kernel-alsa binary RPM, compiled from the same sources as everything else. It would then be possible to produce, say, a kernel-alsa-1.0.11 src.rpm that will produce a binary RPM that will obsolete (ie install over) the kernel-alsa-2.6.16 RPM that was produced as part of the kernel build. As I say though, it's a lot of work and it's not clear that either (a) it will work as intended (b) it's worth the effort for the (very) small number of people that it would benefit and (c) what happens when you install kernel-alsa-2.6.17. In general, it's probably better for people who need a new version of ALSA to either build their own an install it over the kernel RPM or to wait patiently for the main line kernel to pick up the requisite version and then for Fedora (in this case) to pick up that kernel. jch _______________________________________________ Alsa-user mailing list Alsa-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/alsa-user
