On Sun, Feb 25, 2007 at 03:20:37PM +0100, Daniel Kobras wrote: > On Sat, Feb 24, 2007 at 07:32:39PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote: > > * Rebuild with --without-dv1394 instead of --with-dv1394 (closes: 406670)
> > This is obviously a change with non-local effects. Is this going to break > > anything else? > > Should I understand that the effect of --without-dv1394 is to cause kino to > > use some internal dv1394 implementation instead of the libdv1394 in the > > archive? In that case, why should we accept a workaround such as this > > instead of looking for a proper fix for whatever libdv1394 incompatibility > > exists? > There is no libdv1394 -- you're probably mixing it up with libdv. dv1394 > is a kernel interface to capture dv data that has been deprecated for > quite a while. It's superseded by libiec61883, and that's what kino uses > now. I don't know why the --with-dv1394 was added to the Debian package > in the first place, but this option is strongly discouraged upstream and > gave rise to several problem reports both upstream and in the Debian BTS > whereas capture via libiec61883 is in good, supported shape and just > works. Ok, thanks for the clarification; unblocked. Cheers, -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
