keeping alsa stable

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
7 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

keeping alsa stable

Atte
Hi

I thinking about how to make the audio part of my debian/unstable as
stable (stable as in "not affected by apt-get upgrades in a bad way") as
possible. I'm using the realtime kernel from demudi which should provide
ost of alsa. And csound5 is compiled in different dirs (not installed)
so I can switch version simply by changing a symlink. To get that out of
the equation I run directly on top of alsa without jack.

Now what I'd like to know is how much of alsa is updated through apt-get
update from unstable? And how key are these parts to my simple setup?
Are there ways to keep the system more stable than what I have?

Thanks in advance for any pointers...

--
peace, love & harmony
Atte

http://www.atte.dk
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: keeping alsa stable

Laura Conrad
>>>>> "AAJ" == Atte André Jensen <[hidden email]> writes:

    AAJ> Now what I'd like to know is how much of alsa is updated through
    AAJ> apt-get update from unstable? And how key are these parts to my simple
    AAJ> setup? Are there ways to keep the system more stable than what I have?

Nothing is changed by "apt-get update" except the list of things that
can be installed by "apt-get ...".  You probably meant to say "apt-get
upgrade".  I solve the problem of not having that break things by
never running it at all.

What I do instead is I have a script that runs "apt-get update", and
then "apt-get install" for a list of things that I want to keep
up-to-date on.  Which does actually include alsa in my case, since I'm
having problems that i hope someone might fix some day.  

Another piece of my system is that I read the Debian Weekly News and
when they have a security update to something I use, I add that to the
list of things that get installed after an update.

If you really need to not have something updated, you should pin it.
For instance, at the moment, I can't upgrade tetex, because it would
break the version of lilypond I run, so I have a file
/etc/apt/preferences which contains the lines:

Package: tetex-base
Pin: version 2.0.2*
Pin-Priority: 1001



--
Laura (mailto:[hidden email] , http://www.laymusic.org/ )
(617) 661-8097 fax: (501) 641-5011
233 Broadway, Cambridge, MA 02139

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: keeping alsa stable

Atte
Laura Conrad wrote:

> Nothing is changed by "apt-get update" except the list of things that
> can be installed by "apt-get ...".  You probably meant to say "apt-get
> upgrade".

Sure, stupid typo...

> If you really need to not have something updated, you should pin it.

Yeah I know pinning and used it sometimes. But I still need to know how
much the packages "alsa", "alsa-base", "alsautils", "alsa-utils"
"alsa-tools" and "libasound2" can break the stability of alsa...

I mean they contain the userspace tools I presume. And the only tool I
explicitly use is aconnect. But others might be needed for alsa to work
correctly...

--
peace, love & harmony
Atte

http://www.atte.dk
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: keeping alsa stable

Ismael Valladolid Torres-3
In reply to this post by Laura Conrad
Laura Conrad escribe:
> What I do instead is I have a script that runs "apt-get update", and
> then "apt-get install" for a list of things that I want to keep
> up-to-date on.  Which does actually include alsa in my case, since I'm
> having problems that i hope someone might fix some day.  

It must be kept in mind that the only reason there should be for
running sid should be helping Debian developers and not day to day
usage. If wanting to have updated software it looks far more suitable
pinning to stable or testing tracking a limited number of packages
from unstable.

Another chance, the best from a stability point of view, is sticking
to stable and backporting packages when a newer version is
needed. I've running woody for years with some backports from sarge
for important software I wanted to have updated and few things ever
broke.

Some links below I hope useful:

http://backports.org/
http://jaqque.sbih.org/kplug/apt-pinning.html
http://www.argon.org/~roderick/apt-pinning.html

The best about Debian is that you can have exactly the flavour you
want. :)

Cordially, Ismael
--
Dropping science like when Galileo dropped his orange
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: keeping alsa stable

Tim Hall-8
In reply to this post by Atte
On Wednesday 04 January 2006 22:55, Atte André Jensen was like:

> I thinking about how to make the audio part of my debian/unstable as
> stable (stable as in "not affected by apt-get upgrades in a bad way") as
> possible. I'm using the realtime kernel from demudi which should provide
> ost of alsa. And csound5 is compiled in different dirs (not installed)
> so I can switch version simply by changing a symlink. To get that out of
> the equation I run directly on top of alsa without jack.
>
> Now what I'd like to know is how much of alsa is updated through apt-get
> update from unstable? And how key are these parts to my simple setup?
> Are there ways to keep the system more stable than what I have?

Possibly by using other packages from DeMuDi (1.3 - 'etch' compatible branch)?
--
cheers,

tim hall
http://glastonburymusic.org.uk/tim

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: keeping alsa stable

Atte
In reply to this post by Ismael Valladolid Torres-3
Ismael Valladolid Torres wrote:

> It must be kept in mind that the only reason there should be for
> running sid should be helping Debian developers and not day to day
> usage. If wanting to have updated software it looks far more suitable
> pinning to stable or testing tracking a limited number of packages
> from unstable.

First: I might actually install stable on the other partition on my hd,
but I'll have to think a bit more about that.

Next: There's plenty of reason to run unstable (at least everyone I know
that runs debian on their desktop thinks so). I normally don't have any
problems with my (stable) unstable box.

Against stable: Stable is nice, and I pray release rates are speeded up
after the fuzz about stable. But 3 years is simply too long on my
desktop. I tried backporting, never liked it.

Against testing: Testing is (in a bad way) in between stable and
testing. It seems there's no real consensus at to when packages arrive
in testing, so some part of the system is almost as old as stable and
others are as unstable as unstable.

--
peace, love & harmony
Atte

http://www.atte.dk
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: keeping alsa stable

Piotr Pruszczak

>
> Next: There's plenty of reason to run unstable (at least everyone I know
> that runs debian on their desktop thinks so). I normally don't have any
> problems with my (stable) unstable box.

I had NOT problems, too - unstable usually works fine

>
> Against stable: Stable is nice, and I pray release rates are speeded up
> after the fuzz about stable. But 3 years is simply too long on my
> desktop. I tried backporting, never liked it.

this was always problem - decide between backporting or upgrade.. :/

>
> Against testing: Testing is (in a bad way) in between stable and
> testing. It seems there's no real consensus at to when packages arrive
> in testing, so some part of the system is almost as old as stable and
> others are as unstable as unstable.
>

Testing is more unstable  the unstable itself .. it is because of
"testing" means "during the freeze process" && unstable means "unsecure
but working" - however who of us wants "the safest audio station on
world" ;)


my experience from Debian is, that it works out-of-the-box, however ....
there are many little troubles and if you want to go to realtime kernel
&& audio apps, you can reach big number of little troubles very soon ... :/

that is the reason why I am now tuning Gentoo.... seems to be really
faster, more stable with "strange work parameters" like realtime
processing... and the only problem is - if somebody wants it - to have
just fast processor / emerge process can run 1-2 days

of course - no offence for Debian, I still love it for philosophy &&
really user-friendly, clear and smart system.


--
Piotr