Is alsa-version 1.0.20 or 1.0.18?

[Adam Williamson]

On Fri, 2009-06-05 at 07:11 +0200, antonio montagnani wrote:
> Antonio Olivares wrote / ha scritto on /il 05/06/2009 05:22:
> > Dear fellow testers,
> >
> >   I have been running rawhide successfully for quite some time.  On
> a home machine from which I only have dialup connection I took it to
> school and updated a Fedora 11 Preview Installation and am running
> with no troubles or not much at all.  I ran scanModem, the tool from
> LinModems to identify modems.  It reports alsa version to be 1.0.18, I
> also run ./alsa-info or something like that that it outputs
> to /tmp/alsa-info.txt.  I have attached the output of both and see why
> one reports 1.0.18(ScanModem) and the other the alsa-info.txt has
> several ones still reporting 1.0.18.  Should not they all match
> 1.0.20?  Something appears to be wrong, and I'd be better asking than
> be sorry later.
> >
> > Attached will be the files.

> !!ALSA Version
> !!------------
> 
> Driver version:     1.0.18a
> Library version:    1.0.20
> Utilities version:  1.0.20

This is normal. The drivers are provided as part of the kernel, while
the libs and utils are provided as separate packages. It's quite common
for the libs and utils to be somewhat ahead of the drivers, as these get
updated as soon as the ALSA project makes a new release, while the
kernel drivers get updated only on the upstream kernel's schedule (we
don't replace the ALSA from the upstream kernel with the latest version
from alsa-project.org) so they tend to be a bit slower.

This doesn't cause any problems. Later libs and utils are usually
perfectly compatible with slightly older drivers, and if in any case
they aren't, our maintainers would simply hold up on updating the libs /
drivers packages for a while.

So, situation normal, don't panic :)
-- 
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org
http://www.happyassassin.net