[vdr] Re: Question regarding future direction of VDR

[Klaus Schmidinger <Klaus.Schmidinger@cadsoft.de>]

Michal Dobrzynski wrote:
> 
> Hi Klaus,
> 
> I know you've answered this question before but I'm not sure I fully
> understood what you mean.
> 
> With regards to modularizing VDR you said that you wanted such things
> as LIRC, keyboard, etc supported by VDR itself so that VDR could stand
> alone. I'm having trouble understanding how making things like LIRC and
> keyboard, etc plugins would conflict with that goal. These would be
> plugins which are part of VDR and I think "vdr -Plirc", "vdr
> -Pkeyboard", or even "vdr -Plirc -Pkeyboard" are better than vdr-lirc
> or vdr-kbd.
> 
> This is just my opinion but I think that would still leave you with
> complete flexibility in developing VDR as you see fit since those would
> be core VDR plugins but it would also allow much greater flexibility
> for users and/or developers to customize things for themselves with far
> greater ease.
> 
> I'm not trying to tell you what to do, just trying to understand why
> you seem to be against this sort of modularisation. Kind of reminds me
> of the debate between Linus and Tanenbaum regarding OS modularity.

You can simply compile VDR without LIRC and/or KBD support by using the
proper options when calling 'make', and write your own plugins for LIRC
and KBD support. Where's the problem?

Klaus


-- 
Info:
To unsubscribe send a mail to ecartis@linuxtv.org with "unsubscribe vdr" as subject.