On Sun, Mar 12, 2006 at 06:53:26PM +0100, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
> Le vendredi 10 mars 2006 à 10:18 +0100, Hans Verkuil a écrit :
> 
> > So the situation is that 0.6 might work with 2.6.16, but I'm not sure. I'm
> > not going to spend time on it until 2.6.16 is released.
> 
> The situation would not even arise if ivtv was available as a kernel
> patch (meaning - building with normal kernel tools on vanilla kernel
> *not* custom tools on v4l cvs). That's the canonical kernel way and it
> is supported by Fedora (just drop the patch in the srpm as for example
> the wireless guys have been doing - the wireless tree didn't even exist
> when ivtv declared merging time!)

That's not true, Fedora Core only includes non-upstream bits when
there is some obvious vendor interest like wlan, selinux, cluster/gfs
and xen. Otherwise if you come up with any non-enterprise grade
requests you get the usual "make it happen upstream".

Just for the fun of it you can try to ask Fedora Core to include the
patches for Plextor or any other patchly provided v4l driver. You'll
never get it into Fedora Core w/o getting it into vanilla kernel.

> If upstream merging continues to stall would it be possible to
> consider releases-as-kernel-patches?

What's wrong with the current external building? If there would be
only patches instead of standalone builds you would have fewer third
party support. E.g. there is very low acceptance to providing a
replacement set of kernel rpms, but people are very happy about
externally built kmdl packages. In fact that makes very much sense, as
the rest of the kernel is used unaltered in the state it left QA at
the vendor.

> [... lots of ranting ...]

> Here.
> I'm done.
> Hope I won't resend something like this in a few months.
> I'm probably dead wrong about some things but that's how ivtv looks like
> from a bystander point of view.

Nicolas, I think you're treating the project developers quite
unfair. ivtv has undergone very rapid development even though at a
slower pace in the new year, and as Hans pointed out, lots of things
are visible on the v4l lists or Linus' changelogs.

The ivtv project has managed to keep its users very happy. New kernels
are supported in a very timely manner and new hardware/tuners the
same. That's what the real user demand is.

In this sense, thanks to Hans, John, Tyler, Chris, Kevin and all
others involved for their efforts!!!
-- 
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net

Attachment: pgpFpMk5vDU7T.pgp
Description: PGP signature

_______________________________________________
ivtv-devel mailing list
[email protected]
http://ivtvdriver.org/mailman/listinfo/ivtv-devel

Reply via email to