With -std=c99 and -D_BSD_SOURCE, there is a conflict between time.h and
alsa/global.h.

#include <time.h>
#include <alsa/asoundlib.h>

$ gcc -c -std=c99 -D_BSD_SOURCE -Wall test.c
In file included from /usr/include/alsa/asoundlib.h:44,
                 from test.c:2:
/usr/include/alsa/global.h:137: error: redefinition of ‘struct timeval’
/usr/include/alsa/global.h:142: error: redefinition of ‘struct timespec’

* John Lindgren [100803 09:22 -0400]:

So what do you expect Debian Alsa maintainers can do at this point?

Elimar

Are you telling me not to report bugs that are present in Debian, to
Debian, or are you honestly asking my opinion?  I suggest (1) patching
the conditional definition of those structures to include a check for
_BSD_SOURCE, (2) removing the definitions altogether, since they are not
necessary in Debian, or (3) forwarding the report to upstream ALSA
maintainers and asking them to deal with it.

severity 591481 minor
tags 591481 wontfix
thanks

* John Lindgren [100803 13:32 -0400]:
Debian packages and (2) you should file upstream by your self
because (3) Debian maintainers are not the secretary of lazy users
who want to build the Debian packages for whatever platforms or use?

Wontfix
Elimar

PS.: Please let us know the bug# of the the ALSA BTS ;-)

What is it exactly that the "Debian Alsa maintainers" do?
Where should Debian Alsa bugs be reported?
If a developer trying to use the Debian Alsa Package should not
discuss bugs on the pkg-alsa-dev mailing list, where should that
developer discuss them?

I am sure I missed something somewhere.

It must be you.

What is it exactly that the "Debian Alsa maintainers" do?
Where should Debian Alsa bugs be reported?
If a developer trying to use the Debian Alsa Package should not
discuss bugs on the pkg-alsa-dev mailing list, where should that
developer discuss them?

I am sure I missed something somewhere.

* John Simpson [100803 14:57 -0500]:

Maintaining the Debian ALSA packages

If the bug is Debian ALSA packages related to the Debian BTS

The Debian ALSA packages are based on the raw ALSA sources. The
packages are prepared to build on the (maeanwhile 12 or so) suported
archs. So if one wants to change the build environment and found a
bug this is really _not_ Debian related. If we can point out this we
recommend to file the _non_ Debian related bug to upstream. Those
bugs are not distribution related and should be (if any) fixed
upstream. This is users fault, though.

Of course yes ;-)

Elimar

I finally found this (in the .diff file that "apt-get source
libasound2-dev" retrieves):
--- alsa-lib-1.0.14sa.orig/debian/copyright
+++ alsa-lib-1.0.14sa/debian/copyright
@@ -0,0 +1,35 @@
+This package was debianized by Wichert Akkerman 7 Jun 1998.
+Masato Taruishi took over on 17 Oct 1999.
+Since September 2002 it has been maintained by the participants in
+the pkg-alsa project at alioth.debian.org.
+
+Bugs in the source code (as opposed to bugs in the packaging) are best
+reported to the upstream bug tracking system:
+
+  https://bugtrack.alsa-project.org/alsa-bug
+
+The source code was downloaded from the ALSA homepage:
+
+  http://alsa.sourceforge.net
+
+alsa-lib
+--------


Perhaps that information could be placed here ->
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/admin/pkg-alsa-devel/?VARHELP=general/info
and here ->
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/admin/pkg-alsa-devel/?VARHELP=general/welcome_msg
as documented at
http://staff.imsa.edu/~ckolar/mailman/mailman-administration-v2.html

That way, when end-users (PEOPLE who "just want this thing to work")
get as far as seeing this:

   [1|user@Nokia-N810-43-7|~]cat alsa-lib_1.0.14sa-2maemo2.dsc
   Format: 1.0
   Source: alsa-lib
   Version: 1.0.14sa-2maemo2
   Binary: lib32asound2-dev, lib64asound2, lib32asound2,
libasound2-dev, libasound2, libasound2-doc, libasound2-dbg,
lib64asound2-dev
   Maintainer: Debian ALSA Maintainers <pkg-alsa-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org>

... and go to that list to get help from the exspurts, they can be
redirected to the appropriate forum.

THAT is "what" I "expect Debian Alsa maintainers can do at this point?" !

just my halfpence

This is not true, the ALSA bug tracker is completely abandoned upstream.

This is also very out of date, should be http://alsa-project.org

* John Simpson [100804 14:53 -0500]:
[...]

Hey, 1.0.14 isn't supported any more . This version was valid ages
ago.

No.

No,

What do you want?

I run a n800 maemo driven as well. But as of my understanding
packages for that arch should be updated to the newest versions (we're
running 1.0.23 right now). You need to find a MAEMO-ALSA maintainer.

Debian people are happy to find flavours like MAEMO but the
maintaining of those packages should be kept by MAEMO people.

Elimar

[1|user@Nokia-N810-43-7|~]apt-get source libasound2-dev
Reading package lists... Done
Building dependency tree
Reading state information... Done
Need to get 1148kB of source archives.
Get:1 http://repository.maemo.org diablo/sdk/free alsa-lib
1.0.14sa-2maemo2 (dsc) [1020B]
Get:2 http://repository.maemo.org diablo/sdk/free alsa-lib
1.0.14sa-2maemo2 (tar) [1099kB]
Get:3 http://repository.maemo.org diablo/sdk/free alsa-lib
1.0.14sa-2maemo2 (diff) [47.5kB]
Fetched 1148kB in 12s (88.4kB/s)
dpkg-source: warning: extracting unsigned source package
(./alsa-lib_1.0.14sa-2maemo2.dsc)
dpkg-source: extracting alsa-lib in alsa-lib-1.0.14sa
dpkg-source: unpacking alsa-lib_1.0.14sa.orig.tar.gz
dpkg-source: applying ./alsa-lib_1.0.14sa-2maemo2.diff.gz
[1|user@Nokia-N810-43-7|~]

Why not ?

Why not ?

I want the libasound2-dev package installed on my device, so that I
can use it to generate sound on my device.

So are you saying that I should go to
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-maemo-maintainers
for help with libasound2-dev?

 Why not ?

Why not ?

I want the libasound2-dev package installed on my device, so that I
can use it to generate sound on my device.
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-maemo-maintainers
for help with libasound2-dev?

I found this thread showing that this is a recurring problem:
http://lists.maemo.org/pipermail/maemo-developers/2010-January/023978.html

Looks like it's 0004047