alsa vs OSS in esound (Re: SPECS: esound.spec (HEAD))

Michal Moskal malekith at
Wed Sep 3 15:16:57 CEST 2003

On Wed, Sep 03, 2003 at 02:26:37PM +0200, Radoslaw Zielinski wrote:
> Michal Moskal <malekith at> [02-09-2003 20:13]:
> > On Tue, Sep 02, 2003 at 08:08:37PM +0200, malekith wrote:
> >> Module name:	SPECS
> >> Changes by:	malekith	03/09/02 20:08:35
> >> Modified files:
> >> 	esound.spec
> >> Log message:
> >> - fix --without alsa descripting -- enabling alsa disables OSS
> > You can enable either alsa or OSS in esd. I personally use OSS, some
> > people use alsa, so there is no good default for distribution. A
> > solution would be to provide esound-alsa and esound-oss mutually
> > exclusive packages, but only way to do it, I see, is to make
> > a symlink (made in %post) to proper library which is ugly
> > hack I think. Does anybody have better solution?
> Make two distinct packages Conflict:'ing each other, give them Provides:
> esound(thistimereally), and add this to Requires in the (almost empty)
> esound package.  And turn off resolving -> `rpm -q --qf
> '%{NAME}\n' --whatprovides` at the building stage, for
> there will only be one esound-(alsa|oss) installed on a builder.

Yes, this is what I was thinking about, except for the fact that only
thing that depends on alsa vs oss choice is, and there is much
more stuff in esound (some utils).

What I don't like is %files section. Is there a way to put files with
different contents but the same name in subpackages?

: Michal Moskal :: : GCS {C,UL}++++$ a? !tv
: When in doubt, use brute force. -- Ken Thompson : {E-,w}-- {b++,e}>+++ h

More information about the pld-devel-en mailing list