[vdr] [ANNOUNCE] VDR developer version 1.7.24

Klaus Schmidinger 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
>>>>> receiver
>>>>>       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
>>> IDLEPRIORITY?
>>
>> 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...

Klaus



More information about the vdr mailing list