[vdr] Straw poll: stable version 1.6.0 now?
ms at citd.de
Sun Feb 3 12:48:21 CET 2008
On 03.02.2008 12:17, Klaus Schmidinger wrote:
> On 02/03/08 12:06, Matthias Schniedermeyer wrote:
> > On 03.02.2008 11:17, Klaus Schmidinger wrote:
> >> So, here's the straw poll:
> >> Should there be a stable version 1.6.0 now, based on what's in
> >> version 1.5.14, but without DVB-S2 or even H.264 support?
> > Is the CAM Handling regarding multiple parallel recodings (on the same
> > channel) fixed?
> Have you tried version 1.5 yet?
And as the 1.2-version works great i have no real pressure for anything
The only exception is channel-scanning, but for that i have a
1.4-version in a parallel-setup, that i can run for a bit of time when
there are no recordings pending.
I will try a 1.6-version after a little time has passed, but it heavily
depends on me having to update the Linux-install to a recent state or
> It can do multiple parallel recordings with the same CAM (if the
> CAM supports this).
That's not a case i'm very much interested in, at least as long as i
don't know it is actually usable in my case. But even then, Murphy will
prevent it from being useful 90% of the time it could have been useful.
So it's still nothing i would count on.
Taking aside that i can't update my DVB-computers linux-installation to
anything recent as the 1.2-version of VDR can't cope with a recent glibc
(threading). But that's not a real problem as i don't use my
DVB-computers for anything else. :-)
Real Programmers consider "what you see is what you get" to be just as
bad a concept in Text Editors as it is in women. No, the Real Programmer
wants a "you asked for it, you got it" text editor -- complicated,
cryptic, powerful, unforgiving, dangerous.
More information about the vdr