On Thu, Apr 1, 2021 at 10:55 AM Geraldo <geraldogabriel@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Em Qua, 31 de mar de 2021 23:19, Lucas <jaffa225man@xxxxxxxxx> escreveu: > >> Thanks for the encouragement and wisdom. I hope your additions, and >> mine, work out in the end. >> > > They will! > > A real hurdle with tasking everyone with patching for their devices, aside >> from having probably long since given up hope for use of the device on >> GNU/Linux, is the amount of disparate forums they voiced their issues on. >> There's also the daunting likelihood that select few music creators >> actually would decide to compile their own kernels to see if a problem is >> fixed, let alone feel comfortable enough applying a patch. >> > > Recompiling kernels with custom patches and workarounds for regular > devices is madness. This should be needed only for development purposes. > True, but it's much less of a burden on a source-based distro. I used to use mainly Sourcemage GNU/Linux, which made changes pretty painless. With debian it's still doable, though I think building the packages takes more time. On Sourcemage, updating the whole system after a glibc upgrade takes even more patience. > >> I hadn't realized this was a list to drum up testers, or that every >> change needs to be tested fully. I thought it was a direct path to >> possible acceptance for inclusion in the kernel, if reasonable doubts are >> considered. >> > > Well the Linux kernel has to be somewhat orderly even if the open source > development model is inherently chaotic. > > This should be a list with lots of testers but I'll bet the volume scares > them off. > Yeah, the sheer amount relegated my thread to oblivion pretty fast. > >> I hope they'll let me sidestep that huge, unreasonable, undertaking, as >> my test implicit feedback "fix" for the UA-4FX (which doesn't need it) >> proved it still functions as perfectly as without it. >> > > I disagree a bit with you. It's not very wise to add unneeded quirks. > In this case the quirks to me seem to be Roland/Edirol/Boss devices that don't need this method, but yes your point is well taken. > That should mean that for the devices that don't require this patch, but >> which had been accidentally added, no harm is done. I can't really see >> myself as owner of all these devices someday... ;) >> >> Thanks again, Geraldo!, >> >> Lucas Endres >> > > Thank you, > Geraldo Nascimento > >> Thanks again!
