> 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 disallo
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,
> 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 st
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
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
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 n
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 d
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
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.
/etc/modu
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 scrip
> (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'
On Wed, 9 Oct 2002, [iso-8859-1] Chris Rankin wrote:
> --- 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 ha
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 ker
> 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
--- 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
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
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?
B
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 n
Sorry guys, I thought you were talking about the snd_ prefix of the module NAMES
:) for the option names, dropping seems the right thing to do - an error message
should be printed when a snd_* option is used.
Florian
Florian Bomers wrote:
>
> I like it a lot. Due to the prefix I was able to cl
--- 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
modules.conf, of course. Irritating, but no more than
that.
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, writer
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 confu
22 matches
Mail list logo
