Le Lun 13 mars 2006 00:13, Axel Thimm a écrit : > 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".
That's 100% true I can modify any FC kernel SRPM to include a patch in ~15 min of work, you can contrast it with the work needed to integrate ivtv cleanly. >> [... 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. You can think whatever you want. > 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. The ivtv has managed to keep *one* class of users very happy. > New kernels are supported in a very timely manner That's not really true > and new hardware/tuners the same. To be fair, this part is > That's what the real user demand is. Axel, if you want to be credible about this, I'd suggest you start taking all feedback, the one you like with the one you don't. ivtv right now is organised to catter about one sort of user (your users if I wanted to oversimplify), and actively discourages any other feedback (your answer is unfortunately a textbook example of this). When Hans says he doesn't have the time for anything else he's brutaly honest (even if I wish he had answered something else). When *you* say everything is fine, you're not. I only posted to debunk the myth all users where happy with the quiproquo, fully expecting some abuse in return. I'm sorry I was right. Though the "real" user bit is a bit rich. I don't doubt no one will dare asking the same question for a few months now. Score 1 for the real users. -- Nicolas Mailhot _______________________________________________ ivtv-devel mailing list [email protected] http://ivtvdriver.org/mailman/listinfo/ivtv-devel
