[gentoo-releng] oss in make.defaults for 2006.0?

[gentoo-releng] oss in make.defaults for 2006.0?

[Michiel de Bruijne]

Now that useflags are evaluated for the 2006.0 profile (e.g. nptl and apache2) 
I wonder if it's still necessary to have oss in make.defaults? The 
replacement (alsa) is preferred by kernel developers for almost 2 years. Time 
to remove it from the 2006.0 profile?
-- 
gentoo-releng@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-releng] oss in make.defaults for 2006.0?

[Luca Barbato]

Michiel de Bruijne wrote:
> Now that useflags are evaluated for the 2006.0 profile (e.g. nptl and apache2) 
> I wonder if it's still necessary to have oss in make.defaults? The 
> replacement (alsa) is preferred by kernel developers for almost 2 years. Time 
> to remove it from the 2006.0 profile?

I'd have a look at how many software are using oss only and how many 
have good alsa support, not to mention which drivers are oss only or 
work better as oss.

lu
-- 
gentoo-releng@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-releng] oss in make.defaults for 2006.0?

[Michiel de Bruijne]

On Friday 25 November 2005 10:24, Luca Barbato wrote:
> Michiel de Bruijne wrote:
> > Now that useflags are evaluated for the 2006.0 profile (e.g. nptl and
> > apache2) I wonder if it's still necessary to have oss in make.defaults?
> > The replacement (alsa) is preferred by kernel developers for almost 2
> > years. Time to remove it from the 2006.0 profile?
>
> I'd have a look at how many software are using oss only and how many
> have good alsa support, not to mention which drivers are oss only or
> work better as oss.

For the programs that are oss-only a useflag shouldn't even exists, because 
it's not optional.
All systems I maintain (about 15 different hardware/software specs) have -oss 
and work as expected. I'm interested if someone on this list has 
hardware/software where oss is preferred over alsa?
Does anybody knows if the default setup of other distros include 
"oss-compiled" packages?
-- 
gentoo-releng@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-releng] oss in make.defaults for 2006.0?

[Spider (D.m.D. Lj.)]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1775 bytes --]

On Fri, 2005-11-25 at 11:00 +0100, Michiel de Bruijne wrote:
> On Friday 25 November 2005 10:24, Luca Barbato wrote:
> > Michiel de Bruijne wrote:
> > > Now that useflags are evaluated for the 2006.0 profile (e.g. nptl and
> > > apache2) I wonder if it's still necessary to have oss in make.defaults?
> > > The replacement (alsa) is preferred by kernel developers for almost 2
> > > years. Time to remove it from the 2006.0 profile?
> >
> > I'd have a look at how many software are using oss only and how many
> > have good alsa support, not to mention which drivers are oss only or
> > work better as oss.


Theres a few issues here, at least Trident and via chipsets work good in
alsa. however, due to the difficulty for programmers to use the
alsa-api, you actually get -better- sound (less glitches and buffer
underruns) if you use alsa-drivers + alsa-oss emulation.

This is clearly visible in Fex.  amarok (gstreamer backend) and other
players, especially under higher system loads. (yes, even with a
preemptive kernel)



> For the programs that are oss-only a useflag shouldn't even exists, because 
> it's not optional.
> All systems I maintain (about 15 different hardware/software specs) have -oss 
> and work as expected. I'm interested if someone on this list has 
> hardware/software where oss is preferred over alsa?
> Does anybody knows if the default setup of other distros include 
> "oss-compiled" packages?

Yeah, they do. At least last I checked both ubuntu and Fedora Core had
oss as their default sound-sinks for many things. The transition period
will take ages I'm afraid :/


//Spider


-- 
begin  .signature
Tortured users / Laughing in pain
See Microsoft KB Article Q265230 for more information.
end


[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-releng] oss in make.defaults for 2006.0?

[Chris Gianelloni]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2948 bytes --]

On Fri, 2005-11-25 at 15:05 +0100, Spider (D.m.D. Lj.) wrote:
> On Fri, 2005-11-25 at 11:00 +0100, Michiel de Bruijne wrote:
> > On Friday 25 November 2005 10:24, Luca Barbato wrote:
> > > Michiel de Bruijne wrote:
> > > > Now that useflags are evaluated for the 2006.0 profile (e.g. nptl and
> > > > apache2) I wonder if it's still necessary to have oss in make.defaults?
> > > > The replacement (alsa) is preferred by kernel developers for almost 2
> > > > years. Time to remove it from the 2006.0 profile?

Never... going... to... happen... (don't worry, I'll explain)

> > > I'd have a look at how many software are using oss only and how many
> > > have good alsa support, not to mention which drivers are oss only or
> > > work better as oss.

The software that primarily supports OSS only is my other area in
Gentoo... games.

There's no way that we can make, for example, Return to Castle
Wolfenstein or Enemy Territory, both of which are extremely popular, use
ALSA natively.  They *do* work with ALSA compiled with USE="oss" or with
alsa-oss installed.  As far as I know, the oss USE flag on ALSA only
enables the alsa-oss dependency.

> Theres a few issues here, at least Trident and via chipsets work good in
> alsa. however, due to the difficulty for programmers to use the
> alsa-api, you actually get -better- sound (less glitches and buffer
> underruns) if you use alsa-drivers + alsa-oss emulation.
> 
> This is clearly visible in Fex.  amarok (gstreamer backend) and other
> players, especially under higher system loads. (yes, even with a
> preemptive kernel)
> 
> 
> 
> > For the programs that are oss-only a useflag shouldn't even exists, because 
> > it's not optional.

For those applications, correct.  However, I have shown a good reason
for it.  Unless we simply tell anyone to always merge alsa-oss if they
want to play games, which isn't exactly a "works out of the box"
solution.  I can think of a few scenarios we could employ to work around
this, but they aren't nearly as clean as simply having OSS in the
default USE.  Personally, I think it should stay until it is removed
from the kernel, and even then, it must stay so long as we are
supporting 2.4 kernels which do not have ALSA, such as vanilla-sources.

> > All systems I maintain (about 15 different hardware/software specs) have -oss 
> > and work as expected. I'm interested if someone on this list has 
> > hardware/software where oss is preferred over alsa?
> > Does anybody knows if the default setup of other distros include 
> > "oss-compiled" packages?
> 
> Yeah, they do. At least last I checked both ubuntu and Fedora Core had
> oss as their default sound-sinks for many things. The transition period
> will take ages I'm afraid :/

I would say a very long time, indeed.

-- 
Chris Gianelloni
Release Engineering - Strategic Lead
x86 Architecture Team
Games - Developer
Gentoo Linux

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-releng] oss in make.defaults for 2006.0?

[Michiel de Bruijne]

On Friday 25 November 2005 15:21, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> On Fri, 2005-11-25 at 15:05 +0100, Spider (D.m.D. Lj.) wrote:
> > On Fri, 2005-11-25 at 11:00 +0100, Michiel de Bruijne wrote:
> > > On Friday 25 November 2005 10:24, Luca Barbato wrote:
> > > > Michiel de Bruijne wrote:
> > > > > Now that useflags are evaluated for the 2006.0 profile (e.g. nptl
> > > > > and apache2) I wonder if it's still necessary to have oss in
> > > > > make.defaults? The replacement (alsa) is preferred by kernel
> > > > > developers for almost 2 years. Time to remove it from the 2006.0
> > > > > profile?
>
> Never... going... to... happen... (don't worry, I'll explain)

Thanks, for this clear answer and your explanation (Spider as well). Now I 
know that some hardware or programs still need oss and to make is as easy as 
possible for ordinary users it should stay in the default profile. However on 
the systems I maintain I see different behaviour then what you described 
below.


> The software that primarily supports OSS only is my other area in
> Gentoo... games.
>
> There's no way that we can make, for example, Return to Castle
> Wolfenstein or Enemy Territory, both of which are extremely popular, use
> ALSA natively.  They *do* work with ALSA compiled with USE="oss" or with
> alsa-oss installed.  As far as I know, the oss USE flag on ALSA only
> enables the alsa-oss dependency.

All the systems I maintain have -oss and don't have alsa-oss installed (I do 
have activated OSS emulation in the kernel though). All the games I have 
installed on those systems (including RTCW and ET) work perfectly. That 
doesn't off course say that all Gentoo-based systems or all games work 
without problems, but I'm trying to say that the dependency on alsa might not 
be as necessary as you seem to think.


> > > For the programs that are oss-only a useflag shouldn't even exists,
> > > because it's not optional.
>
> For those applications, correct.  However, I have shown a good reason
> for it.  Unless we simply tell anyone to always merge alsa-oss if they
> want to play games, which isn't exactly a "works out of the box"
> solution.  I can think of a few scenarios we could employ to work around
> this, but they aren't nearly as clean as simply having OSS in the
> default USE.  Personally, I think it should stay until it is removed
> from the kernel, and even then, it must stay so long as we are
> supporting 2.4 kernels which do not have ALSA, such as vanilla-sources.

Shouldn't 2.4 users use a 2.4 profile? (if they don't they have other 
"challenges" as well e.g. udev vs. devfs). oss turned on by default in a 2.4 
profile makes perfect sense to me.


> > Yeah, they do. At least last I checked both ubuntu and Fedora Core had
> > oss as their default sound-sinks for many things. The transition period
> > will take ages I'm afraid :/
>
> I would say a very long time, indeed.

I understand, thanks!
-- 
gentoo-releng@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-releng] oss in make.defaults for 2006.0?

[Chris Gianelloni]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2605 bytes --]

On Sat, 2005-11-26 at 09:32 +0100, Michiel de Bruijne wrote:
> > There's no way that we can make, for example, Return to Castle
> > Wolfenstein or Enemy Territory, both of which are extremely popular, use
> > ALSA natively.  They *do* work with ALSA compiled with USE="oss" or with
> > alsa-oss installed.  As far as I know, the oss USE flag on ALSA only
> > enables the alsa-oss dependency.
> 
> All the systems I maintain have -oss and don't have alsa-oss installed (I do 
> have activated OSS emulation in the kernel though). All the games I have 
> installed on those systems (including RTCW and ET) work perfectly. That 
> doesn't off course say that all Gentoo-based systems or all games work 
> without problems, but I'm trying to say that the dependency on alsa might not 
> be as necessary as you seem to think.

Having OSS emulation in the kernel is the same as merging alsa-oss if
using alsa-driver.

> > > > For the programs that are oss-only a useflag shouldn't even exists,
> > > > because it's not optional.
> >
> > For those applications, correct.  However, I have shown a good reason
> > for it.  Unless we simply tell anyone to always merge alsa-oss if they
> > want to play games, which isn't exactly a "works out of the box"
> > solution.  I can think of a few scenarios we could employ to work around
> > this, but they aren't nearly as clean as simply having OSS in the
> > default USE.  Personally, I think it should stay until it is removed
> > from the kernel, and even then, it must stay so long as we are
> > supporting 2.4 kernels which do not have ALSA, such as vanilla-sources.
> 
> Shouldn't 2.4 users use a 2.4 profile? (if they don't they have other 
> "challenges" as well e.g. udev vs. devfs). oss turned on by default in a 2.4 
> profile makes perfect sense to me.

They do.  The point being that I would prefer not diverge them
significantly except in locations where necessary.

The real problem comes in with a game, such as enemy-territory, that
uses oss.  If we remove oss from the default USE, we must have the game
check for either alsa-oss being installed, or check the kernel
configuration itself (yuck!).  With it being a default, we can just
explain to the user that they need OSS support, as the default suggests.

I really would not have a problem with removing oss from the default USE
if someone can come up with a clean way of making sure the support is
there on these older binary games.

-- 
Chris Gianelloni
Release Engineering - Strategic Lead
x86 Architecture Team
Games - Developer
Gentoo Linux

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-releng] oss in make.defaults for 2006.0?

[Spider (D.m.D. Lj.)]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 670 bytes --]


> I really would not have a problem with removing oss from the default USE
> if someone can come up with a clean way of making sure the support is
> there on these older binary games.

I would require a thorough test matrix of all our (popular?)
media-players with a non-OSS system.   This goes to include things like
libsdl with alsa output through neverwinter-nights ( Which -suck-
bigtime, the audio became completely distorted ) And so on.

Frankly, changing this would be a larger task than you think at the
moment.

//Spider

-- 
begin  .signature
Tortured users / Laughing in pain
See Microsoft KB Article Q265230 for more information.
end


[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]