[vdr] [DISCUSSION REQUEST] reintroduce a common make configuration file in VDR-1.7.35
user.vdr at gmail.com
Thu Dec 27 22:21:01 CET 2012
On Thu, Dec 27, 2012 at 10:20 AM, fnu <vdr at auktion.hostingkunde.de> wrote:
>> ... there are way too much changes at the moment :)
> FullAck, but the number of changes are not the issue, it's more the
> sustainability and the time frame within the changes. Looking to the last 5
> versions, each of them do look allmost like a complete new version. There is
> allmost no time for other developers (plugins, addons and distros) to react
> to them and the worse, they don't now if their work is valid for the next
> vdr developer version. If you want to stop any development around VDR, go
> ahead like this ...
Keep in mind, all these changes are occurring in the _developer_
version of VDR, not stable. If package maintainers choose to use
developer rather than stable versions, they should expect things like
this. Maybe the problem isn't the changes, it's that they've picked
the wrong version to work with. Just a thought.
> But don't forget, you don't make a solution liek VDR a success or BBS like
> vdr-portal only with a few "make; make install" users. Over 95% of VDR users
> are using a distribution.
I completely disagree with you claiming "over 95% of VDR users are
using a distribution". Most of the users I talk to regularly, or
observe in various forums do not use pre-made distributions, they
compile VDR themselves so they have full control over what patches (if
any) are being applied, how it's set up, etc. And of those users, most
don't even install VDR, they simply run it from the source dir. You
need to remember, VDR was a success long before these pre-made
distributions so to try crediting VDRs success _to_ them is insane.
I'm not really knocking pre-made VDR -- there are some users who like
it. But, VDR did just fine before them, and will continue doing just
fine long after those projects get abandoned/retire/EOL/whatever.
More information about the vdr