CB Compiling against 2.6.x kernels okay?

[Parts]

Just a question for the holy forthcoming release

Is the CVS HEAD / CB source going to be compiling okay against 2.6.x kernels?

I always tend to keep my systems fairly up to date and I\'m likely to have moved to a stable 2.6.x kernel by the end of the month. The only way I\'m going to rethink that is if CB against 2.6.x is a showstopper

[Karosh_Steinkatz]

Umm... I wonder where the connection between the kernel and a program  is... *shrugs* I\'m not that much of an expert but I think there is none afaik. I would rather be worried about  newer versions of GCC, since 3.4 has some problems to build the current CB CVS (my experience)

[Parts]

Was wondering about the extra things that move from being modular to being integrated components in 2.6 such as ALSA etc.

Thats all okay then?

[Karosh_Steinkatz]

Yupp, It\'s all fine. Alsa is indeed included with the kernel now, but since you can choose to build it into the kernel or to build it as a module its no big difference as to  obtain it seperately. Only the tools are not included, you will have to get them from  the alsa page (alsaconf, alsactl, etc.). And don\'t forget to run snddevices

[Psybur]

Yes, do not use 3.4. I know from personal experience that it whines over things that older versions have no prob with. Even though the problems that 3.4 whines over is easily solved, most people have no C++ experience.

[icebr4kr]

I have it compiling/working now with the 2.6.5 kernel.