[vdr] Re: VDR and 2.6.0-test1?

[Rene Bartsch <ml@bartschnet.de>]

Am Fre, 2003-07-25 um 10.31 schrieb Steffen Barszus:

> > > 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!
> 
> aren't just the headers needed ? Anyway you wont do so ....
> 
> > Of course you can create your own VDR archive that does this - I for one
> > won't make it that way.
> >
> > > > Having DVB in parallel to VDR is just a suggestion (it's the way I have
> > > > it). You can simply change the line
> > > >
> > > > DVBDIR   = ../DVB
> > > >
> > > > in your Make.config file to change this.
> > >
> > > By the way - what about updating VDR and Makefiles to handle the path
> > > for the plugin-libraries. VDR should look for plugins in the default
> > > library-path of the distribution and Makefiles should install/remove
> > > libraries into/from the default library-path of the distribution.
> >
> > I don't want to make VDR dependent on any special Linux distribution.
> > If you want to make a distribution specific VDR archive (that may also
> > contain parts of the driver, if you wish), feel free to do so.
> 
> That was not the point. The point was, to be able to define an own dir while 
> compiling. Nearly all applications having libs in lib-dir, config in 
> conf-dir, data in data-dir and so on. 
>  The idea to leave the current win-like approach for a more standard one isn't 
> that bad. And yes I know I can define all that by myself on startup ... (i 
> have it currently that way)
> 

I can remind very well when I started linux/VDR about 2 1/2 years ago
and all that weird dependencies and do this by hand here and there and
everywhere nearly has driven me crazy. Today it's no problem for me to
install VDR, but I'm thinking of other linux-beginners, who get feared
of linux because of programs like VDR. I'm just aiming for a make ->
make install -> runvdr -> works! No kernel-sources necessary, not much
dependencies ... and installation finding library-paths, etc. itself.
What about adding the path (libraries, executables, docs) of LSB to
Makefile, and if anyone wants to change (maybe for FreeBSD or whatever)
he can add this to Make.config?

-- 
Rene Bartsch
Faculties MNI
Computer Science 8th Semester
FH Giessen/Friedberg, Germany

Facsimile/Phone: +49 7 00/72 27 87 24
Mail:  rene@bartschnet.de



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