Jesse Keating wrote : > > I'm always open to suggestions about possible improvements, although I > > must say removing ALSA support isn't an option since much more people > > complain about not having it than the opposite ;-) > > I'm not really asking to remove it, but perhaps maintain a seperate > package that is built for OSS, instead of alsa. I got rather miffed when > all of your packages suddenly were compiled for alsa, and that means > every one that I wanted to use required a rebuild, and a -devel hunt, and > a package cleanup, and an even LONGER install process. Hmmm, I don't understand where this allergy to ALSA comes from :-) May I remind you that only ALSA _support_ is compiled in, it is not the default output in any of the packages I build! It's just like any other feature you won't ever use in a given program. For instance I use mozilla all the time, and it has a (from what I've heard) powerful Javascript console to help debug etc., well, I've never used it, but I'm sure some people do. Really, with or without ALSA support compiled in, there is absolutely no bahavior change. Honestly, you're the first I see complain about it :-/ BTW, quick reminder as I fully agree with you : If you don't _need_ to be using ALSA, then don't. Unless you like being on the bleeding edge and fooling around for your computer knowledge, it's really not worth the trouble, and definitely not for the typical desktop user. Matthias -- Clean custom Red Hat Linux rpm packages : http://freshrpms.net/ Raw Hide 20030527 running Linux kernel 2.4.20-20.1.2002.nptl Load : 0.32 0.40 0.45
