Hi, AFAIK, we may now have the possibility to drop salsa helper and use alsactl init instead of it in the udev rules file for alsa. I wonder how our distribution's old rules file should be modified in order to reflect this change. I looked at the rules file found in fedora but we were also doing some renaming and grouping in our rules file so I thought that this list would be a right place to get some ideas. Here's our rules file that we're using with 1.0.17: SUBSYSTEM=="sound", GROUP="audio"SUBSYSTEM=="snd", GROUP="audio" KERNEL=="controlC[0-9]*", NAME="snd/%k"KERNEL=="hwC[D0-9]*", NAME="snd/%k"KERNEL=="pcmC[D0-9cp]*", NAME="snd/%k"KERNEL=="midiC[D0-9]*", NAME="snd/%k"KERNEL=="timer", NAME="snd/%k"KERNEL=="seq", NAME="snd/%k" SUBSYSTEM=="sound", KERNEL=="controlC*" RUN+="/usr/sbin/salsa"SUBSYSTEM=="sound", KERNEL=="pcm*" RUN+="/usr/sbin/salsa" Fedora uses only two restore/store actions in their new package: ACTION=="add", SUBSYSTEM=="sound", KERNEL=="controlC*", \ RUN+="/sbin/alsactl -E ALSA_CONFIG_PATH=/etc/alsa/alsactl.conf --initfile=/lib/alsa/init/00main restore /dev/$name"ACTION=="remove", SUBSYSTEM=="sound", KERNEL=="controlC*", \ RUN+="/sbin/alsactl -E ALSA_CONFIG_PATH=/etc/alsa/alsactl.conf store /dev/$name" And also ALSA_CONFIG_PATH was pointing to /etc/asound.state in salsa, is it safe and sufficient to change it to /etc/alsa/alsactl.conf in the udev rules file or do we need any other modifications in the code base? And finally, what are the pros and cons of compiling alsa-plugins with speex support? What's the trade off if it is disabled? Thanks, -- Ozan Çağlayan http://www.pardus.org.tr/eng<ozan_at_pardus.org.tr> _______________________________________________Alsa-devel mailing listAlsa-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx://mailman.alsa-project.org/mailman/listinfo/alsa-devel
