[alsa-devel] ALSA versions versus kernel versions
tiwai at suse.de
Mon Jan 28 17:29:11 CET 2013
At Mon, 28 Jan 2013 11:14:59 -0500,
Daniel Griscom wrote:
> At 4:28 PM +0100 1/28/13, Takashi Iwai wrote:
> >At Fri, 25 Jan 2013 10:10:18 -0500,
> >Daniel Griscom wrote:
> >> I never got a response to my query,
> >... because you're hanging your post to an utterly irrelevant thread?
> >It's the second time, so I guess the previous time wasn't an
> Are there hidden email headers that maintain threads independent of
> the subject line?
In-reply-to and references headers.
> If so then my apologies: my (antique) email client
> has been hiding them from me.
> > > not even an RTFM (although I'm
> >> pretty sure this isn't in the M). So, in case anyone else is
> >> wondering, here's what I've since found:
> >> - The kernel packages do NOT limit themselves to taking an entire
> >> released ALSA package. In particular, the 3.6.X series has a number
> >> of improvements and changes that aren't in the latest (year old)
> >> alsa-driver 1.0.25 package. I'll guess that they're taken directly
> >> from the alsa GIT repository, but it's hard to know.
> >The 1.0.25 *released* tarball is what was released. It won't change.
> >The tarball created from the latest GIT is called "snapshot".
> >And note that the alsa-driver version number has been already
> >deprecated in the recent kernel. The confusing number 1.0.25 was
> >dropped, finally.
> >In short, forget about alsa-driver released packages. Stick with the
> >driver included in your kernel, or use alsa-driver snapshot tarball
> >(but carefully).
> Well, that's good to know. How do you refer to ALSA release versions
> now? Just by the kernel version that the various file versions are
> included into?
Just use the kernel version as the reference. That's enough.
> > > - The alsa-driver package installs items that are NOT a part of the
> >> kernel package. The alsasound startup script and the ALSA headers are
> >> the examples I've found so far, but there may be more items.
> >They are no longer necessary stuff, but kept there since they are
> >mostly harmless. You can run "make install-modules" to install only
> But, I don't want to just install the alsa-driver-1.0.25 modules if
> more recent ones are included in the kernel distributions;
That's why I wrote you should forget alsa-driver packages.
> I only
> need whatever's in alsa-driver that is NOT in the kernel
> distributions, for example:
> - Is /etc/init.d/alsasound not needed? It seems to do a number of
> things on startup/shutdown.
It's a thing the distro should take care of. The installed one is a
reference init script. Forget this.
> - How can I independently install the ALSA headers: "make
> headers-install" inside alsa-driver-1.0.25?
The necessary header files are already included alsa-lib source tree,
and/or included in the kernel tree itself. You never need to install
them separately nowadays. Forget this.
> And, are there any other components that alsa-driver installs that
> are NOT included in the kernel distributions?
Basically nothing. Or, maybe alsa-info.sh. But this script can be
fetched from the web page as well.
> > > - When installed, the alsa-driver package installs its modules into
> >> the currently running kernel's directories. So, if you want to have
> >> the latest system, you need to install the kernel, reboot into that
> >> kernel, install alsa-driver, reinstall the kernel, and reboot again.
> >> Ugh.
> >Hm, did you read INSTALL file? The installation to an update (or
> >extra) directory is suggested. Pass a proper --with-moddir configure
> I missed that: thanks.
> Reading the INSTALL doc on that option, it mentions using a relative
> path to put the installed modules in a subdirectory so as to preserve
> the existing versions: why would I want to do that?
Because it makes your life easier. It keeps the original modules
intact, thus you can manage the updates more easily.
> > > <rant>
> >> ALSA's Achilles heel has always been its documentation, whether for
> >> developers (the Doxygen-generated documents are at times comically
> >> uninformative) or for end-users (e.g. the lack of information such as
> >> the above). Please: those of you in the know, spend some time
> >> documenting this powerful and confusing system. Yes, you know how to
> >> use it, but isn't the goal to have it support the thousands/millions
> >> of audio users out there, and not just the dozen or so core ALSA
> >> developers?
> >> </rant>
> >You seem to overestimate the numbers. I dream of dozen of core
> >developers, too.
> I hear you. But, that makes it even more important that the
> documentation be as complete as possible, so that a) you few
> developers don't get pestered by we not-yet-in-the-know users, and b)
> the knowledge you each have built up over the years isn't lost when
> one of you moves on to other projects.
Sure. But note that the information you've asked are all obsoleted
things. So, it won't be a big problem even if this information is
lost, unless anyone digging Trojan city again :)
> >Speaking of implicit feedback: it's been since 3.5, but lots of bug
> >fixes are found in 3.7. So better to use 3.7, I guess.
> That's good information.
> It most definitely does. Thank you.
> P.S. And, I'll make sure to start a new thread next time.
> Daniel T. Griscom griscom at suitable.com
> Suitable Systems http://www.suitable.com/
> 1 Centre Street, Suite 204 (781) 665-0053
> Wakefield, MA 01880-2400
More information about the Alsa-devel