[vdr] Re: VDR and 2.6.0-test1?

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

Rene Bartsch wrote:
> 
> Am Don, 2003-07-24 um 23.32 schrieb Klaus Schmidinger:
> > Rene Bartsch wrote:
> > >
> > > ...
> > > > > Well as vdr relies anyway on DVB API 3 it would be usefull to add the headers
> > > > > to the vdr package. This way I would not need to add DVB/ tree in parallel to
> > > > > vdr source. As there is no real need for the way now as far as i have
> > > > > understood, it would make things cleaner IMHO. This way f.e. building RPMs
> > > > > would be easier (a bit at least).
> > > >
> > > > I don't think it is a good idea if an application contains the header
> > > > files of a driver or any other library module.
> > >
> > > I'm not talking of headers, etc. A program should include all the
> > > necessary code itself to be compiled against an API. Any change of the
> > > driver code could break compiling of the program. If no other way it
> > > would be an alternative to compile against hernel-headers as they
> > > shouldn't change much, but I don't like software with such a lot
> > > dependencies. Have you never been driven crazy as you had to install 13
> > > proggies and libraries to get a 50 kbyte code running?
> > >
> > > My suggestion is to move the necessary code of the drivers to compile
> > > VDR into VDR and incorporate it in the next structural changes.
> >
> > I don't think this makes _any_ sense!!
> > The driver is the driver is the driver!!
> > VDR is _one_ application that uses the driver - IMO it makes absolutely no sense
> > at all to include _anything_ from the driver into VDR's distribution archive!
> >
> 
> I'm only talking about the necessary code for VDR to handle the API (I
> don't think you want to rewrite that code by your own for VDR). In my
> understanding, a API is a interface between a lower level - the hardware
> driver - and a upper level - the userspace software (VDR). Driver and
> userspace software should only communicate by that well defined API and
> be of NO dependancy from each other (which includes not sharing code. So
> the driver is the driver and userspace software is userspace software).

These interface definitions are in the _driver's_ header files, and I don't
want them in VDR's source archive. If anything changes there in the driver
I want to get to know that (possibly thru a compiler error/warning).

Klaus


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