Goswin Brederlow writes: > Thomas Hood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > So to be clear the alternatives suggested so far are: > > > > 1. The two-package approach > > > > * oss blacklists ALSA modules > > * alsa-base blacklists OSS modules > > * alsa-base Conflicts with oss > > * kernel-image Depends on alsa-base | oss > > I would prefer "oss | alsa-base". Oss always worked out of the box for > me and alsa never.
Well, k-i 2.4 should Depend on "oss | alsa-base"; k-i 2.6 should Depend on "alsa-base | oss". If only one k-i is installed then it will determine which of the two is the default. The reasonable default for 2.6 is ALSA, even if it doesn't work for everyone. People like yourself who have no luck with ALSA can still apt-get install oss. > > 2. The diversion approach > > > > * ALSA modules are blacklisted by default > > * alsa-base de-blacklists ALSA modules and blacklists OSS modules > > * linux26 installs alsa-base > > Why should linux26 install alsa-base? That would mean OSS will always > be blacklisted. OSS will no longer be blacklisted if alsa-base is purged. On this scheme, if alsa-base is _not_ installed then it is the ALSA modules that are blacklisted. > It would be beter if the D-I arch-detect looks at the soundcard of the > system and then recommends either OSS or ALSA as default depending on it. That would be nice, but I take it that it is too late now to make such big changes to the installer before sarge. For all I know it may even be too late to add alsa-base to the list of packages to install in linux26 mode. -- Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
