[vdr] [ANNOUNCE] VDR developer version 1.7.24
Klaus.Schmidinger at tvdr.de
Fri Mar 2 13:01:23 CET 2012
On 02.03.2012 12:54, Frank Schmirler wrote:
> On Fri, 02 Mar 2012 11:08:42 +0100, Klaus Schmidinger wrote
>> On 01.03.2012 09:38, Frank Schmirler wrote:
>>> On Wed, 29 Feb 2012 21:33:31 +0100, Udo Richter wrote
>>>> Am 29.02.2012 16:17, schrieb Klaus Schmidinger:
>>>>> + The function cDevice::Receiving() now returns true if there is any
>>>>> attached to the device. Its boolean parameter has no meaning any more.
>>>> Please remember to drop the following line from PLUGINS.html, as it
>>>> is now finally completely void:
>>>>> (any negative value will allow a cReceiver to be detached from its cDevice
>>> at any time.)
>>>> This was handled via Receiving(true).
>>>> This still leaves the live related receivers unhandled, and since
>>>> there's no way to port the 'volatile' patch without reverting your
>>>> changes, we still have the old osdteletext-channel-blocking bug.
>>> Wouldn't it help to run those live related receivers with priority
>>> IDLEPRIORITY and having cDevice::Receiving() ignore receivers with priority
>> Wouldn't that get us back to square one? ;-)
> Well, no. Previously live TV and related receivers were treated the same way
> (same priority, both handled as if they were not present). Currently we have
> different priorities (-1 and -99) and both are not ignored. So the -99
> receiver is not in the way when switching live TV, but it will have an impact
> on device selection. Ignoring receivers with IDLEPRIORITY (or likewise
> MINPRIORITY) would solve this.
But where would that be different from the previous version, where
all receivers with negative priorities have been ignored?
Now I'm confused...
More information about the vdr