> My questions are: (1) can anyone send me (or post) a fixed version that > compiles correctly? (2) is there some reason I should not be able to use > gcc-0.96-85? (3) if not, then which gcc version should I use?
For the driver package I use kgcc, install it if you don't have it. While the newer redhat gcc's (2.96-85+) _supposedly_ should be able to compile the kernel and drivers I do not risk it. For the library and utilities it should not matter (I guess). I have (in the past) used the normal 0.5.11, kgcc, and ignored any warnings (and it worked). > And I suppose, question (4): should I not be using the supposed stable > version at all, but the beta version (0.9-x)? I'm using kernel 2.4.x. It depends on the software you intend to use and whether it supports the 0.9 api and or is happy with alsa oss emulation (and probably the sound card you have). I've been lucky so far with 0.9 cvs. I have rpms for both a kernel with the low latency patches (2.4.8) and alsa cvs (currently cvs of 10/2/2001) and a bunch of apps that use them at: http://www-ccrma.stanford.edu/planetccrma/software/ You can either install the kernel I use and the binary rpms for the alsa 0.9 drivers, or recompile the alsa srpms (also in the site) with your current kernel, either way they should work fine... The PlanetCCRMA software pages are a work in progress but maybe useful anyway... -- Fernando PS: I also have rpms that compile fine for alsa 0.5, let me know if you need them. _______________________________________________ Alsa-user mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/alsa-user
