[gentoo-dev] RFC: alsa-0.9 ebuilds

[Arcady Genkin]

I've modified the existing ebuilds for the latest 0.9 alsa.

1. My first question is about the version numbering of the portage.
Alsa's own version numbering doesn't fit very nicely into gentoo's
guidelines.  I translated 0.9.0b10 into 0.9.0_beta10, which worked
fine.  However, how do I deal with something like 0.9.0b10a?
0.9.0_beta10a doesn't work, so I kept it simply at 0.9.10_beta10.

2. The second question is regarding dependencies.  alsa-lib is dependent
on alsa-driver, but in dependencies for current alsa-lib-0.5 only
"virtual/alsa" is specified.  What is the rationale for that?  I
thought that it's better to specify the alsa-driver package
explicitely, because alsa-lib needs exactly the same version of
alsa-driver with headers installed, or it won't build.

3. I provided a simple means for the users to build drivers for
only selected card(s) by setting an environment variable ALSA_CARDS.
By default (when the variable is not set), drivers for all cards are
built.  Is this practice acceptable?  (This is at the very top of the
ebuild for alsa-driver).

4. Finally, I'm not sure whether this version sould be masked or not.
I mean, it carries a beta designator, but IMO it's a more mature
software than the 0.5 branch.  If I were to mask this version, how
would I go about it without having CVS access?

I'd appreciate if somebody had a look at these ebuilds (there are
three of them: alsa-driver, alsa-lib, and alsa-utils) and commit them.
Since attaching files to bug reports doesn't work for me for some
reason, I've tarred them together and posted at the following URL:

           http://cdf.toronto.edu/~agenkin/alsa-0.9.tar.gz

I've also opened a bug report for this (bug 507):

              http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=507
Thanks,
-- 
Arcady Genkin
Don't read everything you believe.