Re: [Alsa-user] debuggability of ALSA
Brought to you by:
perex
From: Bill U. <un...@ph...> - 2005-10-24 18:08:33
|
On Mon, 24 Oct 2005, Sergei Steshenko wrote: > Regarding > > " > > This doesn't mean that the release manager is required to have > all these architectures available. Not to mention that your > requirement probably vastly increases the administrative work > required to do a release in the first place. > " > > - IMO it DOES mean the release manager has to build for all architectures > - otherwise the claim that ALSA is Linux (and not only specific-CPU-architecture) > sound architecture is invalid. Alsa is not linux. Alsa is alsa. Alsa is sound card drivers. Linux is a kernel. Alsa interacts with the kernel. So you would be happy if the developers said "Asla is specific-CPU-architecture sound architecture" would make you happy? Or was it that you wanted alsa to support the specific sound hardware you happen to have? And by the way where did you read that they claimed that alsa will work on all kernels and all architectures? You are putting words into their mouths and then castigating them for not living up to your words. > > Regarding > > " > Well, you _have_ that same level of comfort. Just wait until your > distro provides the debugged drivers. > ". > > No, I do not have the same level of comfort. > > If I file a bug report, and the developer sends a patch, I have to apply the patch and > to recompile - I would like to get the ready to use binary instead. The statement was "the same level of comfort" NOT " as comfortable as it could possibly be". Windows and Mac do NOT provide developmental patches to their drivers. In fact they do not provide drivers at all. They tell you to go to the manufacturers, who do NOT provide development patches either. > > The developer should check compilability and linkability of the > patch anyway, so had the suggested binary drivers mechanism > been in place, the desired binary driver would have been the > automatic consequence of the compilability and linkability test. Yes, he will but he will NOT check it on all possible releases of the kernel. The kernel has of the order of 1000 options for each release of the kernel. Thus there are of the order 2^1000 different possible kernels that people could have, times the number of kernels. If you really want developers to test on all 2^1000 possible variations, I assure you you will never ever get any drivers. This is why they are willing to supply you with the patch, and if you find you have problems with it, they will then try to figure out why and correct them. Yes, you are part of the testing. If you do not want to be, make sure you buy only standard hardware and wait for the distro to give you a new release. > > > Please also consider my suggestions in the light of the idea that > Linux should finally become a system for end users, and stop being as > > http://www.djcj.org/LAU/guide/index.php#history > > reminds us: "Designed for hackers by hackers". And if Linus makes a statement that "Linux is for hackers by hackers" you would be happy? Or is it that you want your particular sound card to work. You are trying to apply moral arguments to developers when you are unwilling to do the work to help them. As if the developer had some moral responsibility to making your life easy. IF the developer designs a patch so that your system can work, and sends it to you to try out (when he almost certainly does NOT have your particular system to try it out on) then you bitching because he did not also come over to your house and install it for you sounds pretty petty. > > > > On Mon, 24 Oct 2005 18:12:40 +0200 > Michael Gerdau <mg...@te...> wrote: > >>> And developers should have build system for all the supported >>> architectures anyway - otherwise they can't claim an architecture >>> is supported. >> >> This doesn't mean that the release manager is required to have >> all these architectures available. Not to mention that your >> requirement probably vastly increases the administrative work >> required to do a release in the first place. >> >>> I would like to have the same level of comfort under Linux. >> >> Well, you _have_ that same level of comfort. Just wait until your >> distro provides the debugged drivers. >> >> After all you usually don't get development versions of your >> drivers on either Win or Mac anyway. >> >> I guess the price for getting development versions is to compile >> them yourself. >> >> Just my opinion, best, >> Michael >> >> PS: Why not ask your distro supplier to regularly provide binary >> versions of your drivers ? >> If I'm not mistaken you _can_ get binary versions for all major >> distros anyway. >> -- >> Vote against SPAM - see http://www.politik-digital.de/spam/ >> Michael Gerdau email: mg...@te... >> GPG-keys available on request or at public keyserver > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.Net email is sponsored by the JBoss Inc. > Get Certified Today * Register for a JBoss Training Course > Free Certification Exam for All Training Attendees Through End of 2005 > Visit http://www.jboss.com/services/certification for more information > _______________________________________________ > Alsa-user mailing list > Als...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/alsa-user > -- William G. Unruh | Canadian Institute for| Tel: +1(604)822-3273 Physics&Astronomy | Advanced Research | Fax: +1(604)822-5324 UBC, Vancouver,BC | Program in Cosmology | un...@ph... Canada V6T 1Z1 | and Gravity | www.theory.physics.ubc.ca/ |