I'm using my own kernel, compiled form source, which has ALSA compiled into it already. Portage wants to recompile the ALSA driver. How can I make portage assume the newest version is already installed?
> I'm using my own kernel, compiled form source, which has ALSA compiled > into it already. Portage wants to recompile the ALSA driver. How can I > make portage assume the newest version is already installed?
# emerge --inject alsa-driver
will fool portage into thinking it is installed.
-d -- darren kirby :: Part of the problem since 1976 :: http://badcomputer.org "...the number of UNIX installations has grown to 10, with more expected..." - Dennis Ritchie and Ken Thompson, June 1972
On Mon, 20 Dec 2004, darren kirby wrote: > quoth the Justin Patrin: > > I'm using my own kernel, compiled form source, which has ALSA compiled > > into it already. Portage wants to recompile the ALSA driver. How can I > > make portage assume the newest version is already installed?
Note that the kernel version is not the newest version unless you've patched your kernel. It is at version 1.0.6. The alsa-driver in portage is at 1.0.7.
> # emerge --inject alsa-driver
> will fool portage into thinking it is installed.
If you do it this way portage will try to "upgrade" the alsa-driver again when there is a new version available. So a better way is to put these lines to /etc/portage/profile/package.provided:
<t...@vuosaari.hai.fi> wrote: > On Mon, 20 Dec 2004, darren kirby wrote:
> > quoth the Justin Patrin: > > > I'm using my own kernel, compiled form source, which has ALSA compiled > > > into it already. Portage wants to recompile the ALSA driver. How can I > > > make portage assume the newest version is already installed?
> Note that the kernel version is not the newest version unless you've > patched your kernel. It is at version 1.0.6. The alsa-driver in portage is > at 1.0.7.
> > # emerge --inject alsa-driver
> > will fool portage into thinking it is installed.
> If you do it this way portage will try to "upgrade" the alsa-driver again > when there is a new version available. So a better way is to put these > lines to /etc/portage/profile/package.provided:
On Mon, 20 Dec 2004, Benoit Boissinot wrote: > i think it is more correct to put development-sources in > package.provided (correct me if > i am wrong but it should provide virtual/alsa-drivers)
I have to disagree:
If we have information about option A (1) and it works, how would it be more correct to use option X (2)?
(1) the alsa-driver in question
(2) development-sources that have nothing to do with this issue
<t...@vuosaari.hai.fi> wrote: > On Mon, 20 Dec 2004, darren kirby wrote:
> > quoth the Justin Patrin: > > > I'm using my own kernel, compiled form source, which has ALSA compiled > > > into it already. Portage wants to recompile the ALSA driver. How can I > > > make portage assume the newest version is already installed?
> Note that the kernel version is not the newest version unless you've > patched your kernel. It is at version 1.0.6. The alsa-driver in portage is > at 1.0.7.
> > # emerge --inject alsa-driver
> > will fool portage into thinking it is installed.
> If you do it this way portage will try to "upgrade" the alsa-driver again > when there is a new version available. So a better way is to put these > lines to /etc/portage/profile/package.provided:
On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 00:06:27 +0200, Tero Grundström wrote: > On Mon, 20 Dec 2004, Benoit Boissinot wrote:
>> i think it is more correct to put development-sources in >> package.provided (correct me if >> i am wrong but it should provide virtual/alsa-drivers)
> I have to disagree:
> If we have information about option A (1) and it works, how would it be > more correct to use option X (2)?
Because option 1 was not actually correct. Instead of fooling portage into thinking that the latest version of alsa-driver is installed, it is more correct to tell portage that alsa-driver is provided by the kernel sources:
echo "virtual/alsa sys-kernel/development-sources" >>/etc/portage/virtuals (*Note: replace with your favorite sources)
And, if portage is not managing the installation of the kernel sources (if you do them by hand), it may need to be told that they are indeed installed and managed by the user.
On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 08:23:44 +0900, Georgi Georgiev wrote: > echo "virtual/alsa sys-kernel/development-sources" >>/etc/portage/virtuals > (*Note: replace with your favorite sources)
> And, if portage is not managing the installation of the kernel sources (if > you do them by hand), it may need to be told that they are indeed > installed and managed by the user.
On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 08:32:20 +0900, Georgi Georgiev <ch...@gg3.net> wrote: > On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 08:23:44 +0900, Georgi Georgiev wrote: > > echo "virtual/alsa sys-kernel/development-sources" >>/etc/portage/virtuals > > (*Note: replace with your favorite sources)
> > And, if portage is not managing the installation of the kernel sources (if > > you do them by hand), it may need to be told that they are indeed > > installed and managed by the user.
On Wed, 22 Dec 2004, Georgi Georgiev wrote: > On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 00:06:27 +0200, Tero Grundström wrote:
> > On Mon, 20 Dec 2004, Benoit Boissinot wrote:
> >> i think it is more correct to put development-sources in > >> package.provided (correct me if > >> i am wrong but it should provide virtual/alsa-drivers)
> > I have to disagree:
> > If we have information about option A (1) and it works, how would it be > > more correct to use option X (2)?
> Because option 1 was not actually correct. Instead of fooling portage > into thinking that the latest version of alsa-driver is installed, it is > more correct to tell portage that alsa-driver is provided by the kernel > sources:
Why? Could you please tell me *why* this would be more correct?
> And, if portage is not managing the installation of the kernel sources > (if you do them by hand), it may need to be told that they are indeed > installed and managed by the user.
Tero Grundström wrote: > Why? Could you please tell me *why* this would be more correct?
well.. for one, if you inject alsa, then if a new alsa version comes out, the next time you try to update world alsa will attempt to be reinstalled.
for second, if you inject alsa, when you do an emerge world --emptytree, your system will break again as it tries to emerge alsa - since you fooled portage into thinking it was installed, it will attempt to emerge it.
On Tue, 21 Dec 2004, Billy wrote: > Tero Grundström wrote:
> > Why? Could you please tell me *why* this would be more correct?
> well.. for one, if you inject alsa, then if a new alsa version comes > out, the next time you try to update world alsa will attempt to be > reinstalled.
No, I didn't ask this. And if you had read the thread you'd know that I know this..
The question is why it would be better to provide development-sources instead of alsa-driver, in order to tell portage that we already have alsa-driver.
On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 23:32:20 -0000, in local.gentoo.users you wrote: >On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 08:23:44 +0900, Georgi Georgiev wrote: >> echo "virtual/alsa sys-kernel/development-sources" >>>/etc/portage/virtuals >> (*Note: replace with your favorite sources)
>> And, if portage is not managing the installation of the kernel sources >(if >> you do them by hand), it may need to be told that they are indeed >> installed and managed by the user.
On Mon, 20 Dec 2004 21:36:00 -0000, in local.gentoo.users you wrote: >when there is a new version available. So a better way is to put these >lines to /etc/portage/profile/package.provided:
Tero Grundström wrote: >>well.. for one, if you inject alsa, then if a new alsa version comes >>out, the next time you try to update world alsa will attempt to be >>reinstalled. > No, I didn't ask this. And if you had read the thread you'd know that I > know this..
I did read the thread, actually, however I didn't pay attention to the details it seems. Benoit threw me off by saying something about "fooling portage", which is also the same wording used by Darren when he suggested using emerge --inject. Therefore when you responded to Benoit, I thought you were referring to the idea of using --inject.
> The question is why it would be better to provide development-sources > instead of alsa-driver, in order to tell portage that we already have > alsa-driver.
It's a POV issue, which in the computer world can mean a lot. Example:
To techs, the world wide web is a service used on the internet, which is itself a large network made by interconnecting ISP's to one another in a homogeneous way.
To consumers, the word wide web IS the internet, which to them is the ether that surrounds the entire world of computers.
While both POV's allow the www to operate and provide STUFF to people. It is the tech's POV that really makes all that STUFF exist.
Back to Gentoo.
Both POV's allow stuff to work. However, one more accurately describes the system. You don't really have the most up to date version of Alsa installed if you are using the one in kernel version 2.6.#. If you tell portage you do, however, then portage will think you do.
On the otherhand, if you tell portage that kernel version 2.6.# provides alsa, that more accurately describes the system. There may not be a way for portage to use that distinction, but that doesn't mean there won't be a way in the future.
If the Gentoo devs figure out a way to apply alsa versions to kernel sources, then all of a sudden - Portage will know exactly what version of alsa you have in your system if you told it that the kernel provides alsa. A package could then accurately depend upon a specific version of alsa, and portage could use it's knowledge of the version of alsa in a kernel package to ensure you get the right kernel emerged.
On Wed, 22 Dec 2004, Billy wrote: > Tero Grundström wrote: > > The question is why it would be better to provide development-sources > > instead of alsa-driver, in order to tell portage that we already have > > alsa-driver.
[snip] > Both POV's allow stuff to work. However, one more accurately describes > the system. You don't really have the most up to date version of Alsa > installed if you are using the one in kernel version 2.6.#. If you tell > portage you do, however, then portage will think you do.
Actually I do have the latest in-kernel alsa, as I just patched it into my 2.6.10-rc3-ck1 kernel.
> On the otherhand, if you tell portage that kernel version 2.6.# provides > alsa, that more accurately describes the system. There may not be a way > for portage to use that distinction, but that doesn't mean there won't > be a way in the future.
That would be difficult. Just think how rapidly in-kernel alsa versions evolve, and a system may have multible kernels. Furthermore you could also have a patched kernel with updated alsa.
And if we want other alsa stuff in sync with all of those kernels, alsa-lib and others should be slotted.
All of this may very well be the main reason why emerging the alsa-driver is still the preferred method for Gentoo even with a 2.6.x kernel. Rest of us may then do it what ever other way we see fit...
(Btw, with alsa v1.0.7 it became more difficult to determine the alsa version from the kernel-sources, as there is no longer linux/include/sound/version.h)
> If the Gentoo devs figure out a way to apply alsa versions to kernel > sources, then all of a sudden - Portage will know exactly what version > of alsa you have in your system if you told it that the kernel provides > alsa. A package could then accurately depend upon a specific version of > alsa, and portage could use it's knowledge of the version of alsa in a > kernel package to ensure you get the right kernel emerged.
I suppose your right. Overall this was a very good answer to my question :)
On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 10:48:38 -0500, Billy <bi...@gonoph.net> wrote: > Tero Grundström wrote: > >>well.. for one, if you inject alsa, then if a new alsa version comes > >>out, the next time you try to update world alsa will attempt to be > >>reinstalled. > > No, I didn't ask this. And if you had read the thread you'd know that I > > know this..
> I did read the thread, actually, however I didn't pay attention to the > details it seems. Benoit threw me off by saying something about "fooling > portage", which is also the same wording used by Darren when he > suggested using emerge --inject. Therefore when you responded to Benoit, > I thought you were referring to the idea of using --inject.
> > The question is why it would be better to provide development-sources > > instead of alsa-driver, in order to tell portage that we already have > > alsa-driver.
> It's a POV issue, which in the computer world can mean a lot. Example:
> To techs, the world wide web is a service used on the internet, which is > itself a large network made by interconnecting ISP's to one another in a > homogeneous way.
> To consumers, the word wide web IS the internet, which to them is the > ether that surrounds the entire world of computers.
> While both POV's allow the www to operate and provide STUFF to people. > It is the tech's POV that really makes all that STUFF exist.
> Back to Gentoo.
> Both POV's allow stuff to work. However, one more accurately describes > the system. You don't really have the most up to date version of Alsa > installed if you are using the one in kernel version 2.6.#. If you tell > portage you do, however, then portage will think you do.
> On the otherhand, if you tell portage that kernel version 2.6.# provides > alsa, that more accurately describes the system. There may not be a way > for portage to use that distinction, but that doesn't mean there won't > be a way in the future.
> If the Gentoo devs figure out a way to apply alsa versions to kernel > sources, then all of a sudden - Portage will know exactly what version > of alsa you have in your system if you told it that the kernel provides > alsa. A package could then accurately depend upon a specific version of > alsa, and portage could use it's knowledge of the version of alsa in a > kernel package to ensure you get the right kernel emerged.
Thanks to all for the discussion here. It seems the best solution is to take ALSA out of my manually built kernel and allow portage to install the driver as it will get the newest version. From the discussion I assume this will work with kernel 2.6. Is there anything special I have to do to tell portage I'm using a 2.6 kernel or will it auto-configure this based on the headers that are set up (via /usr/src/linux symlink I believe).
On Wed, 22 Dec 2004, Justin Patrin wrote: > Thanks to all for the discussion here. It seems the best solution is > to take ALSA out of my manually built kernel and allow portage to > install the driver as it will get the newest version.
Well it depends... This discussion would not exist if all of us would think that it is the best solution. Doing all the kernel stuff myself has become my preference for various reasons:
- emerging a kernel is different from other emerges anyway, as you'll still need to compile it separately - it takes forever to unmerge a kernel. rm -rf is a lot faster :) - new ck-sources don't get added to portage quickly enough - I don't want to re-emerge alsa-driver everytime I rebuild my kernel
> From the > discussion I assume this will work with kernel 2.6. Is there anything > special I have to do to tell portage I'm using a 2.6 kernel or will it > auto-configure this based on the headers that are set up (via > /usr/src/linux symlink I believe).
AFAIK it checks the kernel version via the /usr/src/linux and installs the alsa modules to the correct directory in /lib/modules/
Just follow the Gentoo Alsa Guide, and you'll be all set.
On Wednesday 22 December 2004 05:01 am, Jim Hatfield
<subscri...@insignia.com> wrote: > On Mon, 20 Dec 2004 21:36:00 -0000, in local.gentoo.users you wrote: > I did this but it doesn't alter what happens: > >term2 root # cat /etc/portage/profile/package.provided > >media-sound/alsa-headers-999 > >media-sound/alsa-drivers-999 > >term2 root # emerge --update --pretend world
> >These are the packages that I would merge, in order: > >[ebuild U ] media-libs/alsa-lib-1.0.7 [1.0.6] > >[ebuild U ] media-libs/alsa-oss-1.0.7 [1.0.6]
Um, look at the categories?
Evidently, portage has alsa in media-libs, so you telling it that media-sound/alsa is provided doesn't really matter.
Try changing those lines in package.provided to the correct category like: media-libs/alsa-headers-999
-- Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. bs...@volumehost.com ICQ: 514984 YM/AIM: DaTwinkDaddy
> On Wednesday 22 December 2004 05:01 am, Jim Hatfield > <subscri...@insignia.com> wrote: > > On Mon, 20 Dec 2004 21:36:00 -0000, in local.gentoo.users you wrote: > > I did this but it doesn't alter what happens: > > >term2 root # cat /etc/portage/profile/package.provided > > >media-sound/alsa-headers-999 > > >media-sound/alsa-drivers-999 > > >term2 root # emerge --update --pretend world
> > >These are the packages that I would merge, in order: > > >[ebuild U ] media-libs/alsa-lib-1.0.7 [1.0.6] > > >[ebuild U ] media-libs/alsa-oss-1.0.7 [1.0.6]
> Um, look at the categories?
> Evidently, portage has alsa in media-libs, so you telling it that > media-sound/alsa is provided doesn't really matter.
> Try changing those lines in package.provided to the correct category like: > media-libs/alsa-headers-999
sorry look again: alsa-lib and alsa-oss are in media-libs, alsa-drivers and alsa-headers are in media-sound.
> -- > Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. > bs...@volumehost.com > ICQ: 514984 YM/AIM: DaTwinkDaddy
On Monday 20 December 2004 22:36, Tero Grundström wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Dec 2004, darren kirby wrote: > > quoth the Justin Patrin: > > > I'm using my own kernel, compiled form source, which has ALSA compiled > > > into it already. Portage wants to recompile the ALSA driver. How can I > > > make portage assume the newest version is already installed?
I have the same problem.
[...]
> If you do it this way portage will try to "upgrade" the alsa-driver again > when there is a new version available. So a better way is to put these > lines to /etc/portage/profile/package.provided:
Sorry if I missed something, but that path /etc/portage/profile doesn't even exist on my system. Is it okay to create it or is something amiss here ?
On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 19:15:49 +0100, Maarten <gen...@ultratux.org> wrote: > On Monday 20 December 2004 22:36, Tero Grundström wrote: > > On Mon, 20 Dec 2004, darren kirby wrote: > > > quoth the Justin Patrin: > > > > I'm using my own kernel, compiled form source, which has ALSA compiled > > > > into it already. Portage wants to recompile the ALSA driver. How can I > > > > make portage assume the newest version is already installed?
> I have the same problem.
> [...]
> > If you do it this way portage will try to "upgrade" the alsa-driver again > > when there is a new version available. So a better way is to put these > > lines to /etc/portage/profile/package.provided:
> Sorry if I missed something, but that path /etc/portage/profile doesn't even > exist on my system. Is it okay to create it or is something amiss here ?
