Re: why use ALSA?
On Sat Aug 17 2002 at 07:54:47AM -0700, Bill Moseley wrote: > > Is it true that if I had unpacked alsa-source make-kpkg would also produce > an alsa-modules-*.deb package along with the deb for pcmcia modules? yes.
Re: why use ALSA?
At 12:13 PM 08/17/02 +0200, Jord Swart wrote: > >> Ok. Sounds tempting. Is there a way to know what I will gain based on >> my hardware? >http://www.alsa-project.org/ should be the way to find out. I should let them know that the link to my Yamaha YMF-754 spec sheet just shows me an ad how to hide my porno viewing on Windows... >> Sorry to be so clueless, but I was looking at the Debian alsa packages >> (wondering how to install alsa). I see, for example, alsa-utils which >> depends on alsa-modules. Here's something else that's not clear to me in >> with the debian package system: I've built my own kernel: >You want the alsa utils, base and since you've build your own kernel, you need >the alsa source (most probably). Does that mean since I built my own kernel I can't use *-modules packages (e.g. alsa-modules in this example) since my /lib/modules/* directory is specific to the "append_to_version" that I used? Or will the package install scripts use output from uname to find the location of the modules directory? >Now I hope you've built your kernel with make-kpkg, since that is one of the >cool features Debian offers your. If you've downloaded the xfs patch with a >debian packages it was installed in /usr/src/patches (somewhere). If you then >specify 'patch_the_kernel := YES' in /etc/kernel-pkg.conf and execute the >magic: >make-kpkg --append_to_version -xfs-laptop --added_patches xfs --initrd >kernel_image Yes, I used make-kpkg, although I used a slightly different method -- as recommended by the xfs package maintainer. Basically the same, though. I don't use initrd since my xfs is built into the kernel. # apt-get install kernel-source-2.4.18 # apt-get install kernel-patch-xfs $ cd /usr/src $ tar jxvf kernel-source-2.4.18.tar.bz2 $ ln -s kernel-source-2.4.18 linux $ cd linux $ make-kpkg clean Apply the patches manually $ /usr/src/kernel-patches/all/apply/xfs $ make xconfig (disable pcmcia) Set the extraversion for this kernel manually --append_to_version is the same thing, AFAIK $ nano Makefile EXTRAVERSION = -xfs-laptop $ fakeroot make-kpkg --revision=custom.1.0 kernel_image PCMCIA: # apt-get install pcmcia-source $ cd /usr/src $ tar zxof pcmcia-cs.tar.gz $ cd linux $ fakeroot make-kpkg --revision=custom.1.0 modules_image I know I could build kernel_image and modules_image at the same time. make-kpkg is cool. Is it true that if I had unpacked alsa-source make-kpkg would also produce an alsa-modules-*.deb package along with the deb for pcmcia modules? >The hard part is configuring your /etc/alsa/modutils/0.9 file. I'm pretty sure >that google will bring you an answer if you search for your card in >combination with alsa. Yes. I remember trying to setup alsa on another machine and pulling my hair out over setting up the modules. I was finding it hard to get info to help me grok all of the modules setup. Sure is easier to run modconf and simply select the module(s) needed. Thanks for you comments! -- Bill Moseley mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: why use ALSA?
> Ok. Sounds tempting. Is there a way to know what I will gain based on > my hardware? http://www.alsa-project.org/ should be the way to find out. Although I have to admit that the documentation found overthere tends to be very incomplete. Especially if you are going to install alsa90 which you most probably will, if you have a recent soundcard. > 00:0c.0 Multimedia audio controller: Yamaha Corporation YMF-754 [DS-1E > Audio Controller] Sorry, go a maestro and a Soundblaster live, don't know about yours. > Sorry to be so clueless, but I was looking at the Debian alsa packages > (wondering how to install alsa). I see, for example, alsa-utils which > depends on alsa-modules. Here's something else that's not clear to me in > with the debian package system: I've built my own kernel: You want the alsa utils, base and since you've build your own kernel, you need the alsa source (most probably). > $ uname -a > > Linux laptop 2.4.18-xfs-laptop #1 Wed Aug 7 21:25:18 PDT 2002 i686 > unknown unknown GNU/Linux Now I hope you've built your kernel with make-kpkg, since that is one of the cool features Debian offers your. If you've downloaded the xfs patch with a debian packages it was installed in /usr/src/patches (somewhere). If you then specify 'patch_the_kernel := YES' in /etc/kernel-pkg.conf and execute the magic: make-kpkg --append_to_version -xfs-laptop --added_patches xfs --initrd kernel_image You just have to sit and wait. To make a package from your modules you would have to untar that modules (alsa in your case) so they end up in the modules directory. The do a make-kpkg --append_to_version -xfs-laptop --added_patches xfs --initrd modules_image It will apologize for being annoying and you should forgive it being that way ;-). Then, sit back and relax again. The hard part is configuring your /etc/alsa/modutils/0.9 file. I'm pretty sure that google will bring you an answer if you search for your card in combination with alsa. Good luck, Jord
Re: why use ALSA?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi, On Saturday 17 August 2002 3:34 am, Bill Moseley wrote: > So my question is why (or when) would I need to install ALSA? Is there an ALSA is considered to be the future of sound card support on Linux. It was meant to be merged into kernel 2.3 ready to be stable in 2.4 although that didn't happen; however it _has_ been merged into 2.5 so should be stable in 2.6. > advantage of using it in my case when sound seems to be working fine? No necessarily. I used ALSA on SuSE 7.3 because it was the default system there and set up my (ancient) ISA Awe 64 without fuss. I used it initally on Debian because I couldn't be bother to remember how to get OSS/Free working. Unfortunately I had various problems with Quake engine games (the sound in Quake 2 was useless, and there was annoying noises when starting up Return to Castle Wolfenstein), and then when I tried using ALSA 1.0 rather than 0.5.something the thing refused to work due to undefined symbols. I went back to OSS/Free. After a bit of messing in /etc/modulels.conf my sound card works perfectly. My advice: if it works, don't touch it ;) - -- Cheers, Chris Howells -- [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web: http://chrishowells.co.uk, PGP key: http://chrishowells.co.uk/pgp.txt KDE: http://www.koffice.org, http://edu.kde.org, http://usability.kde.org -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE9XemdF8Iu1zN5WiwRAnR8AJ93n2ajfgGQgAs/wXgg9GZa5Cqh+gCbB2da uqzoew2wRfSuL09sBVo9Q74= =TkbA -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: why use ALSA?
At 11:08 PM 08/16/02 -0400, Scott Barnes wrote: I used to wonder about this too, until I took the plunge and got ALSA working on my laptop, discovering to my suprise that ALSA gave me features of my sound card that I hadn't realized it had before! Not to mention the fact that the ALSA drivers give you much more fine tuned control over the mixer settings and various other things. All in all, I find that ALSA is *way* better than OSS/Free. Ok. Sounds tempting. Is there a way to know what I will gain based on my hardware? 00:0c.0 Multimedia audio controller: Yamaha Corporation YMF-754 [DS-1E Audio Controller] Sorry to be so clueless, but I was looking at the Debian alsa packages (wondering how to install alsa). I see, for example, alsa-utils which depends on alsa-modules. Here's something else that's not clear to me in with the debian package system: I've built my own kernel: $ uname -a Linux laptop 2.4.18-xfs-laptop #1 Wed Aug 7 21:25:18 PDT 2002 i686 unknown unknown GNU/Linux and thus have modules in /lib/modules/2.4.18-xfs-laptop. So, can I install alsa-modules-* as a package? That is, can the package know where to install the modules? Or in other words, if I install alsa-utils how does it (dpkg) determine were to install modules, and which alsa-modules pacakge to install? Thanks very much, -- Bill Moseley mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: why use ALSA?
I used to wonder about this too, until I took the plunge and got ALSA working on my laptop, discovering to my suprise that ALSA gave me features of my sound card that I hadn't realized it had before! Not to mention the fact that the ALSA drivers give you much more fine tuned control over the mixer settings and various other things. All in all, I find that ALSA is *way* better than OSS/Free. On Fri, 16 Aug 2002 19:34:49 -0700 Bill Moseley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Apologies in advance for asking such a basic question: > > I've been meaning to ask this question for months. I have sound working on > my machines but without installing ALSA. On my laptop (thanks to this > list) I have sound working by just selecting ymfpci in modconf. xmms, > xine, ogle and what not all seem to work just fine. > > So my question is why (or when) would I need to install ALSA? Is there an > advantage of using it in my case when sound seems to be working fine? > > > > Thanks, > -- > Bill Moseley > mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] > -- Reeve the cat - -BEGIN FORTUNE- You possess a mind not merely twisted, but actually sprained. --END FORTUNE-- -BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK- Version: 3.12 GCS d? s: a? C UL P+ L E- W++ N o K- w--- O M-- V-- PS+++ PE Y PGP t+++ 5 X+ R+++ tv+ b+++ DI++ D+ G e* h-- r+++ y** --END GEEK CODE BLOCK--
