On Wed, 14 Dec 2005, Jonathan Murphy wrote:
This was poor wording on my part. What I meant is that the current
stable set of alsa packages are intended to work with kernel versions
2.6.14. While the current stable kernel version is indeed 2.6.14.3,
to implement it requires incremental patching (correct me if I'm wrong
here) so to all intents and purposes the 2.6.12 series is the current
stable kernel version, headers being as readily available as, say, the
alsa packages. You're using 2.6.14.3 for your test build. I'm assuming
that that means you have a stable build, and if you were using
soft-synths extensively, and perhaps using a USB midi controller to, ah,
control them, and to control your DAW, and stability was of the essence
in terms of not losing your work because of apps crashing, or having
RTC weirdness screw up the timing, then you would need the snd-virmidi
patch. And in terms of lfs, 2.6.12.5 is the current (official) development
kernel version.
I was reluctant to step in to what has all the signs of becoming an
entertaining flamefest (for the few of us who haven't automatically
routed html mail to /dev/null), but can you please stop spreading fud
about what is the current stable kernel ?
1. The current stable kernel is in the 2.6.14 series.
2. The last released headers from PLD are still for 2.6.12.
3. This is not a problem for any sane userspace application, nor for
kernel modules.
4. LFS doesn't do kernel development - 2.6.12.5 may be the version
currently in the svn book, but that doesn't stop any *experienced*
user from upgrading to 2.6.14.
Ken
--
das eine Mal als Trag?die, das andere Mal als Farce
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
