Re: [Protux-devel] the bus detection problem + plus parallel makefiles

[Remon Sijrier]

Hi Luciano,

About the Make stuff, did you ever try a fresh checkout in a newly created
directory and issue the the commands
from the commandline without opening the fresh checkout in KDevelop?
I've seen this "maybe_build_sources" only on a Makefile modified by Kdevelop!
Just an idea ;-)

It should be a minor thing on MAB since I copied the functionality from
"supports" directly to validate() or so.
So when reverting it back, we will still use the same code from
"supports", if it works there it should work in theory in another method
as well. :-)
But as Martin said, we indeed should use ALSA for detecting the available
cards, and the alsa.rc file, also MAB can be modified a bit to use ALSA
more powerfully, but I suggest to do it later, maybe even after 0.40.x or
0.50.x

Best wishes,

Remon

> Luciano Giordana wrote:
>> I think I found the bug on bus detectetion.
>>
>> the routines snd_pcm_test_xxxx in MustuxAudioBus are wrongly validating
>> the
>> buses.
>
> You remember that some snd_pcm_test_xxx() functions don't return what's
> written in the doc (doc out of date) ? We already had this problem once,
> and finally it worked well when checking for the right return value.
>
> Anyway, i think that sooner or later MustuxAudioBus will require to be
> completely rewritten. ALSA provides functions to detect audio cards and
> their capabilities, we just should learn how to use them. And they use
> .alsarc, so we first should learn to correctly set up .alsarc for
> multichannel cards.
>
>> It seems this is not the correct way to use them (what is correct in
>> ALSA anyway? the docs does not teach how to use such functions clearly).
>> SO I set back to use supports(...) routine that it seems to be working.
>> Please
>> Remon, do not change it until we find for sure the correct way test
>> hardware
>> capabilites.
>>
>> Also, I am creating some paralles makefiles so I can work smoothly on
>> protux.
>> I beg Martin to full revise autostuff , since I compared with many
>> source
>> packages and protux/libmustux just do too much things when compared,
>> causing
>> more problems here
>
> Perhaps it would help if you would say with wich source pachages you
> compared it... so i could take a look.
> As already said, i used the current configuration on several different
> distributions with several different configuration, and i haven't seen
> autotools failing since last revision...
>
> /Martin
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Protux-devel mailing list
> address@hidden
> http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/protux-devel
>