On Tue, Jan 06, 2009 at 08:28:11AM +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: >> So in this case, putting them into ATrpms's "bleeding" repo makes a >> lot of sense. > > Normally yes, but not if the latest Fedora kernel already includes > the same Alsa, then providing (nearly) the same in a different place > is just wasting time and leads to confusion among users. Please check the thread - this is about alsa 1.0.18a failing on some hardware which the packages at ATrpms fix. So it's neither a waste, nor confusion, but supporting the userbase (this thread has become waste and confusion). Actually a lot of the current snapshot from alsa has been driven by Paulo who also packaged it up for immediate consuming. And yes, it's all in upstream already, but until 1.0.18b/1.0.19 is released and that pushed to the kernel or the Fedora kernel maintainer backporting the bits it to the next packaged kernel, some people with a nice sound system will only listen to the Sound of Silence. All that Paulo was trying to do here is help users with a problem at hand, be that with a package we created or other advice to get the sound codec going. I really doubt that he will be that enthousiastic to help people out on this list when the side reactions are like that. -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Attachment:
pgpKqPpwFIwZ9.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
