Subject: Re: [ecasound] development release: 2.2.0-pre2
From: janne halttunen (jhalttun_AT_pp.htv.fi)
Date: Sat Oct 19 2002 - 01:11:28 EEST
On Sat, 19 Oct 2002 00:56:30 +0300 (EET DST)
Mikko Nummelin <mnummeli_AT_cc.hut.fi> wrote:
> On Sat, 19 Oct 2002, janne halttunen wrote:
> > Yes, you're supposed to be using ALSA CVS version. (I also have rc3,
> > had the errors, just disabled alsa..)
> IMO, it is really bad practice for bleeding-edge versions to rely on some
> other bleeding-edge versions. That combination makes the probability of
> compiling OK very small. The bugfix for ecasound I think should be
> "next on the line" is to make sure it compiles with latest "standard"
> version of ALSA (even better if it compiles with older ALSA versions
> also) and with older gcc compilers, i.e. 2.95.* etc. I prefer stability
> over some "fine quirkies"!
Not that I am the one responsiple, but what is the standard ALSA version? (also, do you have a report on ecasound not compiling with gcc 2.95?)
ALSA is moving quite fast forward, and to keep up with it is an admirable achievement. If you want stability, use OSS, for now.
(note: by OSS I mean the one that shipped with your kernel, or ALSA emulation)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Sat Oct 19 2002 - 01:17:05 EEST