[linux-dvb] Re: [linux-dvb-maintainer] Re: [ANNOUNCE] V4L latest changes - DVB code removal

Patrick Boettcher patrick.boettcher at desy.de
Sun Jul 17 23:05:11 CEST 2005


Hi,

sorry for this interruption, but what about merging both CVSs in the style 
of dvb-kernel (with the kernel-tree + a build-dvb and build-v4l which 
will link the needed files via "getlinks").

Will it raise the maintenance-effort too much? Johannes, Mauro? Does it 
have any disadvantages I'm not aware of?

best regards,
Patrick.

--
   Mail: patrick.boettcher at desy.de
   WWW:  http://www.wi-bw.tfh-wildau.de/~pboettch/

On Sun, 17 Jul 2005, Johannes Stezenbach wrote:

> Michael Krufky wrote:
>> Hartmut Hackmann wrote:
>>> Just 2 notes:
>>> 1) I would not call -rc and -mm kernels current. They are hacker kernels.
>>
>> -rc 's are PRE-current, and -mm 's are hacker kernels.  I agree with
>> you, that neither are considered the "current" kernel, although Linus'
>> stable -rc tree is quite reliable.
>
> Linus only merges stable, tested patches, so calling -rc "hacker"
> kernels is just wrong. Of course the large amount of patches
> can still cause problems, but they are usually minor.
>
> Normally users neither use -rc kernels nor CVS. They only
> use drivers from CVS if they have a problem with the stuff
> in the latest stable kernel. In that case I think it is
> legitimate to require them to use the latest -rc kernel.
> After all CVS is for developers, not for users.
>
>> ...video4linux cvs will compile with 2.6.13-rc2-mm2 or later, due to
>> add-type-checking-to-pm_message_t-bttv-fix.patch and friends... This is
>> what Mauro is talking about below:
>>
>> Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
>>
>>> 	3) Changes at linux tree that affected V4L:
>>> 	b) A small change at suspend code.
>>>
>>>
>> ...small change, but big effect.  Forces us to use -mm series for
>> development.
>
> I don't feel comfortable with -mm as there is sometimes just too
> much unstable/experimental stuff in there. Not that I had any
> bad experiences with -mm, but I wouldn't feel comfortable
> requiring anyone to use it.
>
>>> I basically agree that we should not have stuff maintained by the DVB
>>> guys
>>> in the video4linux cvs but it is too early to remove it.
>>
>> You're not alone... my entire development model has turned upside-down,
>> now that the DVB stuff has been taken out of v4l cvs.  However, even
>> though I find it inconvenient, I know that this is something that has
>> needed to happen for a long time.  I'm not sure what you mean by "too
>> early to remove it," besides the fact that now anyone that wants to use
>> the lgdt3302 frontend has to upgrade to a 2.6.13 kernel, as there is no
>> longer a method to install it from cvs.... but once again, I must say
>> that the dvb stuff really doesn't belong in video4linux cvs.  The only
>> problem is, now it is more difficult to develop & test between both
>> trees...
>>
>> Actually, this makes wide-scale testing VERY difficult.  dvb-kernel just
>> seems too complicated for the novice user to install from.
>
> If you use latest -rc kernel it is actually very easy. What is difficult
> is to use dvb-kernel CVS together with video4linux CVS. As an easy
> (but maybe ugly) workaround you could write a script that creates
> a number of softlinks from dvb-kernel CVS and video4linux CVS
> in your build directory (like dvb-kernel/build-2.6/getlinks).
>
>> The only solution that I can think of that *might* make everyone happy,
>> would be for video4linux and linux-dvb to release snapshots at the same
>> time.  It would be easiest for users if they could grab one snapshot
>> that contained the entire media tree, but that might be asking too much....
>
> That won't work unless someone with more available time than I have
> steps in to do it.





More information about the linux-dvb mailing list